Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/25/2018 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 | |
| Overview: Department of Education and Early Development | |
| Overview: Department of Environmental Conservation | |
| Overview: Alaska Court System | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 25, 2018
1:32 p.m.
1:32:46 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
Michael Johnson, Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development; Sana Efird, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development; Heidi
Teshner, Division of Administrative Services, Department of
Education and Early Development; Larry Hartig,
Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation;
Thomas Cherian, Director, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Environmental Conservation; Doug
Wooliver, Deputy Administrative Director, Alaska Court
System; Rhonda McLeod, Chief Financial Officer, Court
System, Judiciary.
SUMMARY
HB 285 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 285 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 286 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 286 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
FY 19 BUDGET OVERVIEWS:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
HOUSE BILL NO. 285
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 286
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making supplemental appropriations;
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the agenda for the day.
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
1:34:52 PM
MICHAEL JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced himself and several other
staff present from the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED). He introduced the PowerPoint
presentation: "Alaska Department of Education and Early
Development: Department Overview: House Finance Committee."
He read from slide 2: "Department of Education and Early
Development":
• Alaska Constitution Article 7, Sec. 1
The legislature shall by general law establish and
maintain a system of public schools open to all
children of the State and may provide for other public
educational institutions. Schools and institutions so
established shall be free from sectarian control. No
money shall be paid from public funds for the direct
benefit of any religious or other private educational
institution.
• State Education Policy: AS 14.03.015
It is the policy of this state that the purpose of
education is to help ensure that all students will
succeed in their education and work, shape worthwhile
and satisfying lives for themselves, exemplify the
best values of society, and be effective in improving
the character and quality of the world about them.
• Mission: An excellent education for every student
every day.
1:36:18 PM
HEIDI TESHNER, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, reviewed the
chart on slide 3: "Education and Early Development Budget
Compared to All Agencies Budgets (Non-Formula Only) (GF
Only)." She reported that the total non- formula department
budget was $46.113 million in Undesignated and Designated
General Funds (UGF) (DGF) of which $32 million was UGF and
$14 million was DGF. The budget had been reduced by $25.3
million or 44.2 percent since FY 15. She noted that the
overall budget had increased in FY 15 from the passage of
HB 278 - Education [Chapter 15 SLA 14 - 05/13/2014]. She
moved to the chart on slide 4: "DEED Formula and Non-
Formula Funding (Non-Retirement) (GF Only)." She noted that
the chart on the previous slide was reflected in blue on
the current slide. She indicated that the formula programs
comprised approximately 96 percent of the total budget and
the non-formula was roughly 4 percent of the overall
budget.
Co-Chair Seaton recognized that Representative Birch joined
the meeting in the audience.
1:38:32 PM
Ms. Teshner continued to slide 5: "DEED Non-Formula Line
Item Comparisons (All Funds)." She pointed out that the
chart denoted line items and fund sources. She highlighted
that the increase in FY 10 was attributed to the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding and the
increase in FY 12 was due to the Broadband Technology
Opportunity Program (BTOP).
Representative Wilson asked about the increase in the
commodities number from $1.512 million in FY 18 to $1.643
million in FY 19. Ms. Teshner was uncertain and responded
that she would follow up with the committee.
Ms. Teshner continued to slide 6: "Department of Education
and Early Development Non-Formula Budget Comparisons (by
Appropriations) (All Funds)." She reported that the
Education Support and Administrative Services comprised
largest share of the non-formula budget represented as a
blue line on the graph. She explained that in FY 19 two
appropriations were combined; the Teaching and Learning
Support and Education Support Services were combined into
the Education Support and Administrative Services. The
peaks on the blue line were due to federal funding for the
Education Jobs Fund and other programs.
1:40:38 PM
Ms. Teshner advanced to slide 7: "Department of Education
and Early Development Non-Formula Budget Comparisons (by
Appropriations) (GF Only)." She reiterated that the
Education Support and Administrative Services was the
largest appropriation in the non-formula budget represented
as a pink line on the graph. The increases from FY 09
through FY 13 included funding for the Alaska Native
Science and Engineering program, Best Beginnings, Parents
as Teachers, and other grant funding. The reductions from
FY 15 through FY 17 were due to the repeal of the high
school graduation qualifying exam and reductions in
personal services. The department lost 81 positions since
FY 15.
Representative Pruitt wanted to better understand the State
Facilities Rent appropriation. He wondered about the
decrease of $2 million in all funds for the appropriation.
Ms. Teshner responded that the department had reduced its
lease space which contributed to the decrease and in FY 19
and several other allocations within the appropriation were
moved into different appropriations. She offered that state
facilities maintenance for the Mt. Edgecumbe Boarding
School was moved into the Mt. Edgecumbe Boarding School
appropriation. In addition, the Andrew P. Kashevaroff (APK)
Building that housed the Alaska State Museum and Archives
was moved to the Alaska Library and Museum appropriation.
Co-Chair Seaton acknowledged Representative Guttenberg had
joined the meeting.
1:43:47 PM
Representative Ortiz referenced Ms. Teshner's statement
that since FY 15 the department's budget decreased 44
percent. Representative Ortiz asked how many positions had
been reduced. Ms. Teshner answered that 81 positions were
eliminated in the non-formula portion of the budget.
Representative Ortiz asked if the reductions impacted the
department's ability to fulfill its mission.
SANA EFIRD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, replied that DEED was experiencing a
shift in the balance of federally supported positions
versus the positions funded through GF. She expounded that
currently, the department had roughly 25 positions that
were fully funded by GF. The department was struggling with
the ability to provide support services that were not
federally mandated. She provided the example of the
elimination of the content specialist position. She noted
that cuts were experienced across the board.
1:46:12 PM
Representative Ortiz inquired whether the cuts had a direct
impact on the quality or delivery of education in the
classroom. Commissioner Johnson responded that the
reduction's impacts were felt the hardest in rural
classrooms. The department was less able to support small
districts and small schools with "compliance issues"
related to "federal work." The work was shifted to the
school itself. He suggested that DEED could help with
compliance by supplying staff development and data
reporting for each school, which were services the
department had provided but were eliminated. He commended
DEED's staff for providing exemplary service in the face of
budget cuts.
1:49:24 PM
Representative Pruitt asked about rents for Mt. Edgecumbe
Boarding School. He inquired whether rent or facilities
increases for the school contributed to the increase in its
budget. Ms. Teshner replied that the FY 19 increase for Mt.
Edgecumbe was for additional federal receipt authority
totaling $250 thousand to avoid the use of Reimbursable
Services Agreements (RSA) with DEED to expend grant funds.
The other increase was in the amount of $250 thousand for
interagency receipt authority. The remaining increase
encompassed the appropriation switch that added the funding
that was previously part of the State Facilities Rent
appropriation. Representative Pruitt requested additional
clarity regarding how much funding would be appropriated
from the trust fund for Mt. Edgecumbe. Ms. Teshner answered
that $4.6 million would be appropriated from the Public
School Trust Fund for Mt. Edgecumbe and was not an
increase.
Representative Guttenberg referenced the Broadband Access
Grant data listed on the graph. He asked whether the slide
showed the contribution after the E-Rate had been paid. Ms.
Teshner answered that the grants were designed to increase
schools' download speed to 10 megabits per second. She
explained that the funding was included in HB 278 and it
paid for a portion of the school's internet charges.
1:53:30 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked whether the grant was a
capital or operating expense and was merely paying for
higher downloading capacity. Ms. Teshner replied in the
negative and added that the grant paid for increased
internet speeds. Representative Guttenberg asked whether
matching funds were required. Ms. Teshner answered that
school districts were still eligible for E-Rates and the
increment was the "offset" cost. Representative Guttenberg
asked whether the districts were rural, urban, or
statewide. He requested further information regarding a
breakdown of E-Rates by federal, state, and local
contributions. Ms. Teshner replied that the program was
statewide. She offered to provide a list of districts and
the E-Rate charges.
Ms. Teshner turned to slide 8: "K-12 Aid to School
Districts (Formula, All Funds)." She highlighted that the
blue bars represented formula funding and the red portion
depicted pupil transportation. The green portion of the
bars reflected funding outside of the formula. She moved to
slide 9: "K-12 Aid to School Districts RDU: K-12 Support
RDU" She explained the structure of the table that
reflected the budget detail contained in the Results
Delivery Units (RDU). She noted that the tables were
included through slide 15. The table columns listed the
Allocation and Program, Funding, Number of Alaskans Served,
Cost Through Fees, and Rating of Importance to Mission. The
department had given itself grades A, B, or C. She provided
detail on the meaning of each grade. The grade of "A" meant
the "job was getting done," "B" grade indicated room for
improvement, and "C" designated failure with limited room
for improvement. The remaining 3 categories indicated
whether programs were required either constitutionally,
federally, or via state statute.
1:56:37 PM
Ms. Teshner highlighted items on the slides. She shared
that the base foundation formula was fully funded in the
amount of $5.930 thousand and pupil transportation was
fully funded based on the statutory formula.
Representative Wilson observed that the department had
given itself an "A" in the Foundation Program. She asked
how the department determined whether the job was getting
done. She noted the failing grades in her district.
Commissioner Johnson answered that the department's
accountability system was the federal "Every Student
Succeeds Act" (ESSA) plan and was designed to determine the
effectiveness in schools. He referenced his prior statement
regarding local data and looking at how each school
performed. Representative Wilson asked what happened if the
department had a conversation with a school and the scores
did not change. Commissioner Johnson answered that ESSA
targeted the appropriate levels of support. The plan
identified mechanisms and things the department could do to
support the districts in improving their student
achievement. Representative Wilson wanted to know what
happened in a deficient situation. She provided an example
of a third grader not being able to read. She wondered
whether DEED had a plan to utilize state resources to make
improvements other than talking with the school district.
Commissioner Johnson replied that he wished, particularly
for children who could not read, that there was a checklist
of five things that he could do to fix it. He voiced that
schools reflected our society. He explained that the
legislature spent money on things like the opioid epidemic,
crime, health issues, etc. Societal impacts were brought to
school with the children. He wished concrete measures
existed, so the children's needs could be met. However,
most of the authority in the local school districts rested
with the school boards, leaving the department without much
authority. However, the department endeavored to impact
needed change through its local relationships.
2:02:03 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked the commissioner to return to slide
8. He recalled that in the prior year some legislative
member's suggested education reductions amounting to $70
million that included pre-K. He asked whether it was
"realistic to expect academic achievement" in the
"atmosphere" of budget cuts. Commissioner Johnson believed
that academic achievement was more difficult with limited
resources. He noted the complexities in the system he
mentioned to Representative Wilson and felt that the amount
of resources impacted the department's ability to address
the complexities.
Ms. Teshner turned to slide 10 and 11: "Education Support
and Administrative Services RDU." She highlighted that in
the governor's budget there was a one-time funding
increment for $100 thousand UGF in Student and School
Achievement for updating science standards that were not in
compliance with ESSA. Another increment was $1.2 million
for Early Learning Coordination to continue the Pre-K
programs.
2:05:20 PM
Ms. Teshner advanced to slide 12: "Alaska State Council on
the Arts RDU: Commissions and Boards RDU: Mt. Edgecumbe
Boarding School RDU." She noted that 7 facilities
maintenance employees were being transferred to the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT)
Division of Facilities Services. She turned to slide 13:
"State Facilities Rent RDU: Alaska State Libraries,
Archives and Museums RDU." She reported a $135.9 DGF
appropriation from the Higher Education Fund to Library
Operations for the Broadband Access Grants that brought the
balance into alignment with the demand for the grant. In
addition, she noted a $105.6 UGF reduction in Museum
Operations by the elimination of funding for the Museum
Grant and Aid program. She continued to slide 14: "Alaska
State Libraries, Archives and Museums RDU (con't)." She
pointed to the separate allocation for the Andrew P.
Kashevaroff Facilities Maintenance.
2:07:20 PM
Ms. Teshner scrolled to slide 15: "Alaska Postsecondary
Education Commission RDU: Alaska Performance Scholarship
Awards RDU: Alaska Student Loan Corporation RDU." She
reported an increment of $81.6 thousand for the WWAMI
Medical Education allocation for contractual obligations
appropriated from the Higher Education Fund.
Representative Pruitt expressed concern about how funding
the other budget items' increases would affect the
longevity of the Higher Education fund. He asked about the
stability of the fund. Ms. Teshner could not speak to the
stability of the fund since it was not managed by the
department. She deferred to the Legislative Finance
Division (LFD).
Ms. Teshner turned to the last slide, slide 16: "Health
Care Costs." She reported that DEED's departmental health
care costs had decreased to 1.5 percent of its total
budget.
Co-Chair Seaton assumed that the health care costs applied
only to the department and not schools in the state. Ms.
Teshner responded in the affirmative.
2:10:18 PM
AT EASE
2:12:15 PM
RECONVENED
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
2:12:22 PM
LARRY HARTIG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, introduced himself. He introduced the
PowerPoint presentation: "Department of Environmental
Conservation: House Finance Committee." He turned to slide
2: "DEC's Mission."
Protect Human Health and the Environment
It is the policy of the state to conserve, improve,
and protect its natural resources and environment and
control water, land, and air pollution, in order to
enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the people
of the state and their overall economic and social
well-being.
It is the policy of the state to improve and
coordinate the environmental plans, functions, powers,
and programs of the state, in cooperation with the
federal government, regions, local governments, other
public and private organizations, and concerned
individuals, and to develop and manage the basic
resources of water, land, and air to the end that the
state may fulfill its responsibility as trustee of the
environment for the present and future generations.
The Department shall:
.notdefCoordinate and Develop policies, programs, and
planning related to the environment
.notdefAdopt and enforce regulations for the prevention
and abatement of all potential sources of
environmental pollution
.notdefPromote and develop programs for the protection
and control of the environment
.notdefPrevent and control public health nuisances
.notdefSet standards of cleanliness and sanitation for
establishments in which a lack of sanitation may
create a condition that causes disease
.notdefRegulate food offered to the public or sold,
including inspection of food products, food
handling sanitation standards, labeling, and
training
.notdefRegulate the control and eradication of pests
.notdefEnforce hazard analysis critical control point
programs for seafood processing
.notdefSet standards of sanitation for dairies offering
or selling milk to the public
.notdefSet standards and conditions of aquatic farms
and related hatcheries
.notdefIssue orders or permits relating to animals or
animal products in order to prevent the spread of
pests or contagious or infectious disease, or to
promote the safe or sanitary conditions for the
animals or animal products
.notdefDesignate points of entry of the admission of
animals or animal products into the state
AS 46.03.010, AS 44.46.020, AS 17.20.005, AS 03.05.011
Commissioner Hartig explained DEC's mission as having three
interconnected circles that were inextricably linked; human
health, animal health, and environmental health. The
concept was considered the "One Health Concept" that guided
federal and state agencies in policy development.
2:14:03 PM
Commissioner Hartig mentioned that further information
links could be found on slide 3: "Sources." He moved to the
chart on slide 4: "Department of Environmental Conservation
Share of Total Agency Operations (GF Only)" that included
UGF and DGF. He observed the peak in FY 14 due to the 404
permitting project which was eliminated the following year
with continued budget declines. He elucidated that in FY19
governor's request the average annual growth rate for the
period was 0.85 percent and UGF was 0.38 percent of the
state's budget. He pointed to the box on the left that
explained that UGF declined by $2.2 million (13 percent),
but DGF increased by $5.2 million (27 percent). He detailed
that the DGF increase included permitting fees and the
Response Fund. He expected the amounts to level off because
the department was reaching its statutory limits for fees
and fees for indirect costs.
Commissioner Hartig continued to slide 5: "Department of
Environmental Conservation Line Items (All Funds)." He
reported that most of the department spending was
associated with personal services. He mentioned that all
areas of the department's budget had declined since FY 14.
However, he anticipated an increase in travel for the
purpose of inspections and training.
Co-Chair Seaton asked about Commissioner Hartig's comment
regarding statutory limits. Commissioner Hartig responded
that the statutory barrier had to do with permitting fees.
He explained that two statutes capped the amount of direct
expenses that could be recovered through permit fees and
prohibited recouping indirect expenses via permitting fees.
2:18:42 PM
Commissioner Hartig advanced to slide 6: "Appropriations
within the Department of Environmental Conservation (All
Funds)." The slide denoted the divisions within the
department and graphed their appropriations. He noted that
Air Quality Division was largely fee supported and had
little UGF. He highlighted the green bar representing the
Division of Environmental Health (EH) and pointed to the
drop having to do with the reduction in inspections. He
noted that two divisions in DEC utilized most of its UGF;
Environmental Health, specifically, the Drinking Water and
Food Safety Divisions and the Division of Water. Both had
experienced reductions. He offered that the exemptions for
municipalities and utilities attached to the Spill
Prevention and Response Fund (SPAR) increase to 9.5 cents
on refined products presented a challenge; the exemption
reduced the projected amount of income by approximately $1
million.
2:22:03 PM
Representative Pruitt asked whether Commissioner Hartig
viewed the actual balance falling below the predictions as
a future concern. Commissioner Hartig replied in the
affirmative. He noted that shortfalls were anticipated in
FY 2025 but that depended on crude oil production and how
much refined product would be used. Representative Pruitt
asked whether the increased oil production had stemmed the
challenge in the short-term. Commissioner Hartig's
responded that his "short answer was, not significantly."
He elaborated that the department had been able to live
from the fund's savings since the period of high oil
production.
Representative Ortiz asked a question regarding
transboundary mining. He wondered to what level DEC had
been asked to respond to the issues that might arise from
the activity. He asked whether DEC received any additional
appropriation regarding transboundary mining issues.
Commissioner Hartig responded that Governor Walker and the
Premier of British Columbia, Canada entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) calling for cooperation
in addressing transboundary mining concerns. He elaborated
that under the MOU a Statement of Cooperation (SOC) was
created. One measure DEC undertook was through reporting on
water quality in parts of the state using existing federal
funding from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He
moved the four year study to South East Alaska in response
to transboundary mining. The department was currently
drawing on existing funding to support the SOC efforts and
was looking for other sources. Representative Ortiz asked
whether the water study had resulted in new water testing
activities in Southeast. Commissioner Hartig responded in
the affirmative. In addition, requests had been submitted
to Senator Murkowski from Southeast tribes for additional
resources.
2:27:52 PM
Commissioner Hartig turned to slide 7: "Appropriations
within the Department of Environmental Conservation
(General Funds)." He reported that DEC's total FY 19
operating budget was roughly $80 million with UGF at 18.9
percent, 38.6 percent DGF, federal funds comprised
approximately 28.8 percent and other funds were 21.7
percent. The department used a significant amount of UGF to
leverage other funding sources. He remarked on the
divisions' GF spending trend. He spoke to concerns
regarding the severe cut to Drinking Water and Food Safety
and Sanitation. He worried that the public's health could
be compromised. He provided the example of budget
reductions in Flint, Michigan resulting in systemic lead
poisoning. He appreciated the co-chair of the finance
subcommittees meeting to discuss the risks caused by budget
cuts. He noted that the budget cuts to administrative
services were due to consolidations and efficiencies.
2:31:48 PM
Representative Wilson spoke to the issues regarding air
quality in the North Star Borough. She asked if the
commissioner had been working with the EPA to loosen the
grant restrictions on certified heating stoves.
Commissioner Hartig explained that Representative Wilson
was talking about targeted air shed grants that purchased
more efficient heating stoves or conversions to natural gas
to enable heating sources associated with less sources of
smoke. The restrictions occurred at the federal level over
the objections of the state. He was optimistic DEC would
receive an additional grant by EPA that eliminated the
restrictions. Representative Wilson noted that residents
were receiving fines for using their stoves. She related
more concerns regarding the issue. Commissioner Hartig
indicated the department was attempting to address the
issues.
2:35:41 PM
Commissioner Hartig alerted the committee that the
remaining slides contained the RDU tables. He pointed to
slide 8: "Division of Administration." He commented that
the division had been very supportive regarding reduction
measures taken in other divisions. He pointed to the
Commissioner's Office.
Co-Chair Seaton asked about the department's intention
regarding vacancy factors and wondered whether the
department was reallocating funds to other fund sources.
Commissioner Hartig answered that DEC's overall vacancy
factor was 4 percent and DEC had given up any excess
spending authority. He exemplified that in the Division of
Environmental Heath 121 positions were filled out of 124
and he intended to fill the 3 open positions. He pointed
out that the department's budget reflected its expenses and
needs. Co-Chair Seaton clarified that he was asking about
the authority for other types of funding other than UGF
that he was not receiving and needed to backfill with UGF.
2:38:57 PM
THOMAS CHERIAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, replied
that DEC had identified any excess authority in every
program that added up to $2 million in FY 19.
Representative Ortiz asked whether the 2.5 positions in
Shellfish were associated with testing the levels of PCP.
Commissioner Hartig commented that the allocation was under
EH and was for working with shellfish growers. He commented
that Representative Ortiz was referring to the Shellfish
and Food Safety Testing allocation listed on slide 12 in
connection with the EH lab. He noted the $25 thousand DGF
in fees from non-commercial non-regulated shellfish.
Representative Ortiz asked whether the testing was only
performed in Anchorage. Commissioner Hartig answered that
the testing could only be accomplished through the EH lab
in Anchorage. He indicated that FDA approval was necessary
to sell the shellfish out of state or internationally and
the method the lab in Sitka tried did not gain FDA
approval.
Commissioner Hartig moved to slide 9: "Division of
Environmental Health." He noted that the allocations were
related to the laboratory.
2:42:36 PM
Commissioner Hartig reviewed slide 10: "Division of
Environmental Health (Con't)." He pointed to the
Manufactured Food/Seafood Processors allocation of $930
thousand in federal dollars. He explained that DEC had a
contract with the FDA to perform food inspections for food
sold outside of Alaska. Heavy standards had to be met and
DEC's performance had decreased with the budget reductions.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if there was a reason the Public
Facilities allocation had zero recovery of funds.
Commissioner Hartig replied that the facilities were small,
and he doubted that fee recovery would be cost effective.
He noted that the Retail Food program was 87 percent
supported by fees. He expounded that overall, the
department had $15 million in UGF and approximately $7
million was used for programs that could not be fee
supported. The department could collect up to approximately
$2 million if the statute limitations on fees were removed
but had to be balanced by the amount the industries could
afford.
Representative Wilson did not understand why he could not
charge the businesses that fell under the zero percent
recovery and could not be assessed fees while small
businesses in the Retail Food program were. Commissioner
Hartig would follow up with more information. He reported
that Mr. Cherian performed an audit of recoverable fees and
a DEC economist reviewed the fee impact on the regulated
industry. The department took a systematic approach to fee
assessment.
2:46:58 PM
Commissioner Hartig explained slide 11: "Division of
Environmental Health (Con't)." He pointed to the "heavily"
federally funded Drinking Water program that regulated
public water systems statewide and only recovered 4 percent
of GF through fees. He moved to the Solid Waste program
that only recovered 22 percent of its GF. He noted that the
Pesticide program was largely fee supported. He turned to
slide 12: "Division of Environmental Health (Con't)" that
was associated with the Laboratory Services Component. He
reported that the state purposely did not compete with
private industry. The lab work was mandated or performed
research or activities a private lab would or could not do.
He emphasized that the state lab performed crucial
services. He continued to slide 13: "Division of
Environmental Health (Con't)." He pointed to the Dairy
Programs that served the two Alaskan dairies with a UGF
spend of $413 thousand. He highlighted the Fish Tissue
Testing allocation that was supported through the Ocean
Ranger Program at 100 percent.
Commissioner Hartig continued with slide 14: "Division of
Air Quality." He reported that the entire division fell
under one component that was largely fee supported. He
advanced to slide 15: "Division of Spill Prevention &
Response." He reported that the division was primarily
supported by DGF. He pointed to slide 16: "Division of
Water." He indicated that the division received $1.2
million in reductions shifted from UGF to DGF. He
delineated that when the state assumed primacy of the Waste
Water Discharge Permitting Program in 2009 it was designed
to be increasingly supported through fees and was in the
third year of fee increases.
2:51:56 PM
Commissioner Hartig continued to slide 17: "Division of
Water (Con't)." He related that the water program had two
parts: permitting and standards and facilities. Facilities
included the Village Safe Water Municipal Grant and Loan
Program. He noted that fees were increased under the
Engineering Support & Plan Review allocation.
Commissioner Hartig examined the last slide, slide 18:
"Division of Water (Con't)." He noted that under the
Village Safe Water (VSW) program 75 percent was federally
funded for planning, design, and construction grants for
water and sewer for communities of 1000 or less. The state
matched 25 percent via the capital budget that allowed for
some capital dollars for operating costs. He mentioned the
final program, Technical Assistance and Financing that
included the Remote Maintenance Worker program.
Co-Chair Seaton thanked the presenter.
2:54:12 PM
AT EASE
2:54:42 PM
RECONVENED
^OVERVIEW: ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
2:54:50 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, introduced himself. He introduced the PowerPoint
presentation: "House Finance Committee: Alaska Court System
Overview."
Mr. Wooliver began with reading the mission statement on
slide 2: "Mission Statement":
The mission of the Alaska Court System is to provide
an accessible and impartial forum for the just
resolution of all cases that come before it, and to
decide such cases in accordance with the law,
expeditiously and with integrity.
Mr. Wooliver maintained that budget reductions impacted the
Court System's ability to provide accessibility and perform
expeditiously. He moved to slide 3: "Judiciary's Share of
Total Agency Operations (GF Only)." He noted that the
budget use to increase and currently it was decreasing. He
spoke to the prior cost drivers of statewide pay raises
and placing all the costs associated with the Therapeutic
Costs into the Court System budget.
2:57:53 PM
Mr. Wooliver continued to slide 4: "Judiciary: Line Items
(All Funds)." He reported that Personal Services was the
largest slice of the Court System's budget. He related that
the Contractual Service Line was the only other area of the
budget that changed due to the inclusion of the Therapeutic
Courts budget. Recently, the contractual services shrank by
$900 thousand through reduced internet service costs. He
pointed to slide 5: "Judiciary Appropriations (GF Only)."
He mentioned the inclusion of the two small stable budgets
for the Judicial Council and the Commission on Judicial
Conduct. He specified that the following chart was All
Funds. He turned to slide 6: "Judiciary Appropriations (All
Funds)." He noted the similarity with the previous chart
since the Court System was operated via GF at 97 percent.
Representative Wilson asked how the Therapeutic Courts were
funded. Mr. Wooliver replied that the Therapeutic Courts
was funded using UGF. Representative Wilson wondered why
only UGF was spent. Mr. Wooliver explained that most of the
offenders were indigent. The court never charged for
services associated with plea agreements. Representative
Wilson suggested establishing fees based on a sliding
scale.
3:01:18 PM
Mr. Wooliver reviewed slide 7: "UGF Budget Cuts FY16
FY18":
• FY16 $3,430.4 (3.1%)*
• FY17 $3,805.0 (3.5%)
• FY18 $3,671.8 (3.5%)**
* The FY16 cut was offset by a 2.5% salary increase
resulting in a net reduction of $1,427.6.
** The FY18 cut was offset by increased healthcare costs
resulting in a net reduction of $1,821.4.
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 8: "Examples of Cost-Savings
Measures":
• E-Distribution Project
• In FY18, Deleted 29 PFT, 14 PPT, and 2 Temporary
Positions for a total of 45 Deleted Positions
• Salary Schedules Capped at "R" Step
• Holding 32 Positions Vacant
• Continuing with Friday Afternoon Closures
• Expanded Use of Videoconferencing
Mr. Wooliver indicated that most of the Court Systems
reductions were taken from personal services and in other
areas like travel and using email versus postal services.
Representative Guttenberg asked Mr. Wooliver to speak to
the savings having to do with bandwidth. Mr. Wooliver
deferred the answer to the Chief Financial Officer of the
Court System.
3:03:43 PM
RHONDA MCLEOD, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, COURT SYSTEM,
JUDICIARY, answered that the Court System previously
purchased internet directly from broadband providers. The
system's Information Technology (IT) staff implemented
using a Meraki Device that routed and prioritized its
traffic, so the bandwidth could be channeled to first,
video services, then data, and finally, regular email
services.
Representative Ortiz asked whether the shortened Friday
hours created a growing backlog of cases or if the impact
was minimal. Mr. Wooliver responded that there had not been
a significant change, and that benefits from the closures
were reported within the Court System and in other agencies
that had time to do with time management. He believed it
was more efficient than full position layoffs. He noted the
system's "clearance rate" that was a measure of the Court
System's effectiveness. Currently, the clearance rate
showed that work was still done on time.
3:07:00 PM
Representative Ortiz just discovered the Friday closure was
a 1.5 hour reduction. He was under the impression that the
closure resulted in 4 hours less pay for employees. Mr.
Wooliver responded in the affirmative and added that the
pay decrease was 4 percent.
Representative Kawasaki asked if customers had complained
about the closure on Friday at noon. Mr. Wooliver responded
in the affirmative but indicated that emergency services
were available.
Co-Chair Seaton asked about the 32 positions that were
being held over as vacant and wondered whether they were
attributed to a vacancy factor. Ms. McLeod responded that
the court system was holding them open as a significant
reduction in personal services. She added that the division
maintained a vacancy factor as well. Co-Chair Seaton
inquired whether the vacancies were being held in the event
it was necessary to fill any of them.
Mr. Wooliver interjected that the court system received a
huge benefit with the expanded use of videoconferencing
that produced massive cost savings and efficiencies in the
Court System and other agencies. He provided the example of
substantial savings using videoconferencing between
correctional facilities and court houses.
3:11:49 PM
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 9: "FY19 Operating Budget
Increases":
• $ 510.0 Jury Expenses
square4 FY18 2nd quarter trial rates for Bethel and
square4 Dillingham are up 50% from FY16 2nd quarter
square4 and up 36% from FY17 2nd quarter trial rates
• $ 96.3 Veterans' Court
square4 Funding is for a dedicated Veterans' Court
square4 coordinator
Mr. Wooliver explained that the amounts reflected the
amount necessary for court system operations. He relayed
that when the trial rate decreased savings were realized
but when trial rates increased costs increased, mostly in
jury travel and fees. The court system simply could not
absorb the increased costs. The increment was based on the
trial increases over the prior several months that kept
increasing. He reported that the Veterans' Court main
purpose reacquainted veterans with services available
through the Veterans Administration. He noted that everyone
associated with the Veterans' Court was a veteran. The
court was becoming more popular and was at full capacity
creating a critical need for a Veterans' Court coordinator.
3:16:46 PM
Mr. Wooliver described slide 10: "Judiciary." The slide
showed all the funding sources for Judiciary. He pointed to
the filing fees which had been recently increased by and
estimated $600 thousand and had a prior increase as well.
Alaska was in the average range of court filing fees and
waivers were available.
Representative Pruitt asked what amount was generated by
the initial fee increase. Mr. Wooliver answered that $800
thousand in additional funds were collected.
Representative Kawasaki asked how much of the fines and
fees were collected. Mr. Wooliver indicated that the filing
fees were fully collected. He suggested that a much smaller
collection rate was associated with other mandatory fees.
3:21:39 PM
Mr. Wooliver scrolled to slide 11: "Alaskans Served in
2017":
• 121,636 new cases filed (trial and appellate)
• 7,000 contacts through the Family Law Self Help Center
• 24,112 jurors reported for service
• 8,856 law library patrons
• 672,829 citizens passed through security screening
• 5,056,210 visits to the court's website
• 1,145,167 CourtView searches
• 19,109 online payments made
• 525 therapeutic court participants
• Thousands of on-line court forms accessed or
downloaded
Mr. Wooliver remarked on some of the positive results
listed in the data contained on slide 11. He advanced to
the remaining slide, slide 12: "Effectiveness Ratings and
Measures":
• Case Clearance Rates
• Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs
• Customer Surveys
• Jurors and Vendors Paid Timely
• Electronic Efficiencies
Mr. Wooliver reiterated the court system's high clearance
rate of 98 to 99 percent. He commented on the alternative
dispute resolution programs that mostly dealt with family
law. He reported on the success of the Family Law Help
Center and the Early Resolution Program. He explained how
they worked and the high success rates. He noted the
reduction in time between filing a case and a resolution,
which previously took 172 days and was currently about 50
days. The program offers a 1 day resolution, was not
adversarial, and had no legal fees.
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the agenda for the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:31:32 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:31 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DEED HFIN Overview 1.25.18 FINAL.pdf |
HFIN 1/25/2018 1:30:00 PM |
|
| FY19 Presentation for House Finance 1 25 18 Courts Final.pdf |
HFIN 1/25/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN-Courts Budget Overview |
| HFC Department Overview 01.25.18 (reduced file size).pdf |
HFIN 1/25/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN-DEC Budget Overview |
| 01.26.2018 - DEC Response to HFC 01.25.18 Questions.pdf |
HFIN 1/25/2018 1:30:00 PM |