Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
02/23/2023 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: Fy 2024 Budget by Department of Revenue | |
| Overview: Fy 2024 Budget by Department of Corrections | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 23, 2023
1:32 p.m.
1:32:41 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Johnson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Adam Crum, Commissioner, Department of Revenue; Eric
DeMoulin, Administrative Service Director, Department of
Revenue; Jennifer Winkelman, Commissioner, Department of
Corrections; April Wilkerson, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Corrections; Teri West, Administrative
Services Director, Department of Corrections; Pam Leary,
Director, Treasury Division, Department of Revenue.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Valerie Mertz, Chief Financial Officer, Alaska Permanent
Fund Corporation.
SUMMARY
HB 39 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUND; SUPP
HB 39 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 41 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 39 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
OVERVIEW: FY 2024 BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
OVERVIEW: FY 2024 BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Co-Chair Johnson reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 39
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making reappropriations; 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."
HOUSE BILL NO. 41
"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."
^OVERVIEW: FY 2024 BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
1:34:02 PM
ADAM CRUM, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, introduced
himself and the PowerPoint presentation, "FY2024 Governor
Amended Budget Overview," dated February 23, 2023 (copy on
file). He moved to slide 2 and relayed that the agenda for
the presentation was as follows:
• Department overview and introduction
• FY2024 Department budget priorities
• Year-over-year budget comparisons
• Division budget overview
• Corporations and Authorities budget overview
Mr. Crum continued to slide 3 and offered the mission of
the Department of Revenue (DOR) as follows: to collect,
distribute, and invest funds for public purposes. The
department operated under four values, which were
integrity, stewardship, professionalism, and empowerment.
The divisions with which DOR mainly worked were the Tax
Division, the Treasury Division, the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) Division, the Child Support Enforcement
Division, and the Commissioner's Office and Administrative
Services. The authorities that sat underneath DOR were as
follows: the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC), the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), the Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA), and the Alaska
Municipal Bond Bank Authority (AMBBA). He indicated that
there were members from each of the authorities either on
the phone or in the committee room available to address
each item specifically if it was the will of the committee.
Mr. Crum quickly advanced to slide 4 and relayed the
department's budget priorities. In the prior year, the
legislature helped fund a position for a Chief Risk Officer
and developed a goal referred to as the enterprise risk
management initiative (ERMI). The initiative was introduced
to help build a holistic view of the risks associated with
achieving DOR's most important goals and objectives. He
emphasized the importance of protecting Alaskan's data and
identifying key areas of risk upon which the department
could improve. The department had also put forward efforts
in the PFD Division and implemented security measures in
the last year that would significantly reduce potential
fraud in future dividend application periods. Items such as
multi-factor authentication and myAlaska account tracing
and matching were implemented to increase security. An
additional goal for the department was to improve economic
development by working with other state agencies on state
economic and policy initiatives in order to assist in
finding creative solutions to support economic growth into
the future.
1:36:47 PM
ERIC DEMOULIN, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE, continued on slide 5 which offered a statewide
comparison of the unrestricted general fund (UGF) across
multiple departments. He noted that there were some
outliers that he would address later on in the
presentation. He explained that DOR's portion of UGF was
highlighted on the slide.
Mr. DeMoulin moved to slide 6 and the department's total
budget by fund group. The majority of the funding for DOR
fell into the "other" category. The second highest portion
was federal dollars, the majority of which went to the
Child Support Enforcement Division. He relayed that UGF and
designated general funds (DGF) made up about 7 percent of
the department's total budget authority. The right side of
the slide showed the FY 22 actuals relative to the FY 23
management plan.
Representative Stapp asked if the reduction in funding was
related to the federal COVID-19 relief funding.
Mr. DeMoulin responded in the affirmative.
1:38:31 PM
Mr. DeMoulin advanced to slide 7 and reviewed the
governor's FY 24 amended appropriation by fund group. The
blue bars on the slide represented the baseline budget and
the red bars represented the change to the budget year over
year. He noted that an outlier on the graph was the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), and he would address
the information later in the presentation.
Mr. DeMoulin moved to slide 8. The majority of the
increases from the FY 23 management plan were related to
salary adjustments and cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) to
the baseline budget. There were a few items of note that he
would revisit in future slides. Some of the items proposed
in the amended FY 24 budget were advancements to the Tax
Revenue Management System (TRMS), which would be moved to
the cloud; ongoing maintenance cost associated with recent
upgrades to the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) application
information system; and a restoration of higher education
funding to be paid with higher education funds instead of
general funds. There were a few technical decreases related
to COVID-19 and another decrease related to a one-time
increase that the state received in the FY 23 budget.
Mr. DeMoulin continued to slide 9 and explained that he
would be going through various divisions within DOR in more
detail. The first item he would discuss was the Tax
Division. The TRMS project was currently underway and the
department was requesting an additional $374,000 in UGF to
support the project moving forward. The department also
proposed a reduction in UGF to move the budget authority
into the Criminal Investigation Unit (CIU) to increase
transparency. The final item was related to salary
adjustments in the budget due to COLA.
Mr. DeMoulin advanced to slide 10 and detailed the Treasury
Division. Some of the notable budget proposals within the
division were as follows: restoring the Higher Education
Investment Fund (HIEF) and reducing the UGF component that
presently funded it; restoring cash management for
$685,000, which fell into the other category; and more
salary adjustments related to COLA. He elaborated that cash
management funds were cut in the prior year and the FY 24
budget proposed interagency receipts funding.
1:42:15 PM
Mr. DeMoulin moved to slide 11 and the PFD Division. He
explained that it was one of the items that had received
one-time increment funding in the prior year in relation to
dividend application and security objectives. The funds
were originally appropriated to the department to fund an
identification validation service through a third party. He
relayed that the department had been successful in
improving PFD security and he would elaborate on the
successes later on in the presentation. The department was
appropriated $2 million for the security software and it
was looking to lapse about $1.5 million as it did not need
the entire amount. The next proposed item was ongoing
support for the Dividend Application Information System
(DAIS). There was also a proposed transfer of $469,000 in
CIU funding from the admin services component within the
commissioner's office to the CIU component in order to fund
CIU directly. The final item was salary adjustments related
to COLA.
Mr. DeMoulin advanced to slide 12 and the Child Support
Enforcement Division. The name was recently changed from
the Child Support Services Division but there were no other
significant changes year over year. The reason for the name
change was to better align the division with the naming
conventions of the federal agencies and it also alleviated
some of the confusion on the division's duties.
Mr. DeMoulin continued to slide 13 which offered an
overview of CIU. Currently, CIU was funded through
interagency receipt authority which was billed directly to
the tax and PFD divisions. The divisions were where the
funds were being transferred from in order to move CIU from
the admin services component. The change allowed for
transparency within the budget, showed where the
expenditures were being incurred, and kept investigators
from the tax and PFD division at a comfortable distance.
The idea that the investigators were independent was
important. The remaining budget proposal within the
division was salary adjustments related to COLA.
Representative Hannan understood that more money was coming
from the Tax Division to CIU. She asked for a description
of the criminal investigations within the division. She
understood criminal investigations in the context of PFD
fraud, but the details of investigations related to taxes
were unclear to her. She wondered whether there was
significant fraudulent activity related to taxes in the
state.
Mr. DeMoulin responded that it was not a proportional
representation of fraud or of the activities being
conducted by CIU. The positions existed in the division
years ago but had been moved from the division and were
presently funded through personal services on a one-to-one
basis. The CIU offered weekly updates on caseloads and
current activity and the change was mostly intended to
realign the budget. He noted that Representative Hannan was
correct in that more time was spent on PFD cases than tax
fraud.
1:47:42 PM
Mr. DeMoulin moved to slide 14 and offered a budgetary
overview of AMHTA. He highlighted that the trust's budget
began at zero every year and proposals were dispersed
across the agency for both the operating and capital
budgets.
Representative Coulombe understood that the $5.1 million
figure on the slide represented AMHTA's operations that
came from the trust's budget. She asked what the $539,000
figure [in FY 24] on the slide represented.
Mr. DeMoulin responded that the $532,000 figure [in FY 23]
was within the Ombudsman's office. There were two separate
components within the trust. He explained that the UGF that
had been added over the years usually represented central
rate chargebacks that were allocated towards the trust's
budget which were later added as UGF waivers.
Representative Coulombe wanted clarification on the way in
which AMHTA and the Ombudsman were connected.
Mr. Crum responded that there were representatives
available online to better address the question.
Co-Chair Johnson thought the representatives from the
Ombudsman were not online.
Mr. Crum noted that the authorities within some of the
agencies preferred to speak to the agencies themselves. He
clarified that the primary UGF monies [$532,000 in FY 23
and $539,000 in FY 24] were allocated for the Ombudsman. He
would follow up in writing with more information on the
connection between AMHTA and the Ombudsman.
Mr. DeMoulin advanced to slide 15 and gave an overview of
AHFC. There was a new $3 million increment in federal
authority for the Housing Choice Voucher Program, an
additional $3 million in the new Multi-Family and
Conventional Low Rent Program, and additional salary
adjustments to match COLA.
Representative Galvin referred to CIU on slide 13. She
asked whether CIU was the same agency that investigated
crimes such as gaming violations, illegal gambling, and
pull tabs.
Mr. DeMoulin responded in the affirmative.
Mr. DeMoulin advanced to slide 17 and the Alaska Permanent
Fund Corporation (APFC). He indicated there was a new
increment for incentive compensation for a total of $1.2
million, an increment for consulting and IT improvements
for $251,000, a $240,000 increment for the corporation's
tri-annual workstation replacement schedule, an increase in
Board Honorarium for $6.9 million, and $116,000 in salary
adjustments.
Representative Stapp asked if operating and APFC costs were
incorporated into the net earnings of the Permanent Fund.
He wondered if costs were offset when analyzing the
performance of the fund.
Mr. Crum deferred the question to a representative from
APFC.
1:53:20 PM
VALERIE MERTZ, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ALASKA PERMANENT
FUND CORPORATION, VIA TELECONFERENCE, responded that the
operating expenses of the corporation were reflected in the
financial statements that were published monthly. The
management fee component was reflected in the total fund
performance, but the other operating expenses were not.
Mr. DeMoulin highlighted the investment management fees on
slide 18, which were represented in a different budgetary
component.
Mr. DeMoulin advanced to slide 19 and the department's FY
23 supplemental proposals. He reiterated that the TRMS
cloud migration project was included in the supplemental at
a cost of $186,800 in UGF. He added that DOR was actively
working on the project and anticipated it being posted in
the following month. There was an additional supplemental
item for salary adjustments within AHFC to align the
corporation with HB 226 [passed in 2022]. The final
supplemental item was a technical budget item for AHFC for
federal stimulus monies for housing lapses. It was an
existing multi-year appropriation for the budget and would
be extended to FY 24.
Representative Ortiz asked to return to slide 5. He noted
that the slide showed that the proposed expenditures for FY
24 were just under $2.4 billion. He asked if the figure
seemed to be sustainable for future years.
Mr. Crum responded that as appropriated out, the PFD
Division would ensure that the eligibility and integrity of
the program would be sustained. As long as the 5 percent of
market value (POMV) draw was not exceeded, the fund should
be sustainable.
Representative Ortiz asked if it would be appropriate to
say that the slide reflected the priorities of the
administration in terms of how POMV draw resources should
be used. He noted that there was a reduction in education
funding and a significant increase to the PFD.
Mr. Crum responded that he could not speak to the
priorities of the administration.
1:57:56 PM
Representative Galvin highlighted the $1.2 million in
incentive compensation for investment staff at APFC. She
asked if the funding was coming from UGF.
Mr. Crum responded in the negative and elaborated that the
monies represented the 1105 APFC receipts which originated
from the earnings component. Any funds not used from the
1105 receipts were kept in the Earnings Reserve Account
(ERA) and remained invested.
Representative Galvin asked if it was presently the second
year of utilizing the system.
Mr. Crum responded in the affirmative.
Representative Galvin understood that there were efforts to
become competitive with other states. She asked if Mr. Crum
had any first impressions of whether the incentive
compensation system was working.
Mr. Crum responded that as an APFC trustee, he was able to
vote on the policy. He explained that it was a revised plan
tied directly to the performance against the benchmarks.
Each individual asset class had a benchmark set by the
board upon which the performance was measured. If the
benchmark was surpassed in a particular asset class, there
would be areas where increased compensation could be
distributed. He explained that it was a purely quantitative
number. He opined that it was a healthy strategy thus far
and there were direct APFC staff who could speak to the
matter.
Representative Galvin understood that it was too early to
receive clear numbers and appreciated the information.
Representative Cronk asked if the governor's budget would
reflect a full PFD.
Mr. Crum stated it was his understanding that the
governor's budget included a full PFD following the
statutory formula.
Representative Stapp calculated that the state spent about
$217 million per year to administer APFC, including
operating costs plus the salaries of the investment
managers. He asked what the cost was of administering all
other funds outside of the Permanent Fund.
Mr. Crum responded that page 10 of the presentation
detailed the treasury, which was the division that
administered the General Fund and Other Non-Segregated
Investments (GeFONSI) funds type I and type II, the Power
Cost Equalization (PCE) fund, the Higher Education fund,
and a number of other funds. The department was putting
forward $11,728,000 in the governor's FY 24 amended budget.
There were some other aspects tied within it and he
suggested that a colleague from the treasury should speak
to the funds and to the Alaska Retirement Management Board
(ARMB) in greater detail.
2:02:09 PM
PAM LEARY, DIRECTOR, TREASURY DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, responded that ARMB had separate budget components
including about $10.3 million that supported the board's
operating costs. She explained that part of the amount
supported the treasury staff component in the governor's
amended FY 24 budget. She relayed that close to $7 million
supported the treasury component and she calculated that it
was roughly $14 million to $15 million in total.
Co-Chair Johnson referred to slide 4 asked for a short
description of the last bullet point [economic development
and policy] and for more information about the
implementation plan.
Mr. Crum responded that economic development was a large
priority for the governor. There was an economic subcabinet
within DOA, led by the commissioner of the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED). The
subcabinet met on a weekly basis to discuss the active
projects that were being worked on, ensure coordination
across agencies, and confirm that there was proper outreach
occurring within communities. He added that DOR was
involved in the process and helped develop the initial
plans on how to serve Alaskans better and assist citizens
on a local level. The items were ongoing and DOR intended
to craft official policies relating to economic development
in order to conduct formal outreach to various groups. He
noted that the department was looking to other states
during strategic planning. The department aimed to bring
forward all of the tools that could be used successfully in
Alaska.
Co-Chair Johnson thanked Mr. Crum for his presentation.
2:05:25 PM
AT-EASE
2:07:20 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Johnson indicated that the committee would next be
hearing from the Department of Corrections (DOC).
^OVERVIEW: FY 2024 BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
2:08:15 PM
JENNIFER WINKELMAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, introduced the PowerPoint presentation
"Department of Corrections, FY 2024 Budget Overview," dated
February 23, 2023 (copy on file). She began on slide 2,
which was an overview of the structure of DOC. She
indicated that the Parole Board was temporarily housed
within DOC but it was fully autonomous. Between all of the
executives within the department, there was nearly 150
years of cumulative corrections experience. She explained
that DOC was originally housed as a division under the
Department of Health and Social Services [now the
Department of Health and the Department of Family and
Community Services].
Ms. Winkelman continued on slide 3. The mission of DOC was
grounded in the Alaska Constitution and was as follows: to
provide secure confinement, reformative programs, and a
process of supervised community reintegration to enhance
the safety of Alaska's communities. There were four
divisions within the department and the chart on the slide
showed how each of the divisions satisfied the core
services of the department's mission.
Ms. Winkelman advanced to slide 4 and indicated that Alaska
was one of seven states that operated a unified
correctional system, which meant that the state's prisons
and jails fell under one umbrella. She noted that the
department booked nearly 30,000 offenders into its
facilities in FY 22. She highlighted that 16,978 were
unique offenders, which showed that many individuals were
booked more than once.
Co-Chair Johnson asked for an explanation of the difference
between a prison and a jail.
Ms. Winkelman responded that oftentimes a jail was housed
within boroughs and cities and the population was primarily
unsentenced. The sentenced populations went to prison once
convicted.
Representative Josephson referenced the 660 non-criminal
bookings listed on the slide. He understood that if the
situation was non-criminal, the individual was not waiting
to be made competent and was possibly going into
involuntary commitment.
Ms. Winkelman responded that the non-criminal cases were
often Title 47 involuntary holds for intoxication. There
were some individuals who would later be committed into a
hospital.
Representative Josephson asked if he could get a further
breakdown in writing.
Ms. Winkelman would get the breakdown of the details of
Title 47 cases.
2:12:32 PM
Ms. Winkelman continued on side 4 and noted that DOC was
responsible for approximately 11,000 individuals. There
were many individuals that were within the jails and
prisons, but there were others who were out on sentenced
electronic monitoring, in residential centers or "halfway
houses," on probation or parole, or defendants on pretrial
supervision. She turned the next portion of the
presentation over to her colleague.
2:13:07 PM
TERI WEST, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, continued on slide 5 and offered a historical
picture comparing the FY 24 amended budget to FY 22 actuals
and the FY 23 management plan. The FY 23 management plan
included a supplemental of about $21.3 million, of which
about $17.4 million was related directly to the shortfall
within the institutions. The reduction in designated
general funds (DGF) was related to a fund source change of
recidivism reduction funds to general funds. The other
change seen on the slide was a federal fund source change
related to COVID-19 relief funding.
Ms. West continued on slide 6, which showed the FY 24
operating budget request by fund source. The majority of
the department's funds came from undesignated general funds
(UGF), followed by other federal funds, and finally from
DGF.
Ms. West advanced to slide 7, which showed the operating
budget request by line item. The budget was primarily
funding personal services and the related expenditures,
followed by commodities, travel, and finally capital
outlay.
Ms. West moved to slide 8, which showed the FY 24 budget
broken out by division. The majority of the budget
supported the institutions, followed by health and
rehabilitation services, then pretrial, probation, and
parole, then administration and support, and finally the
Parole Board.
Ms. West explained that there had been an error on the
original version of slide 9 and continued on the corrected
version of slide 9 (copy on file). She relayed that the
slide represented the ten-year history of the department's
budget totals since FY 14. The numbers for FY 14 through FY
22 were based on actuals, while the numbers for FY 23
represented the management plan combined with the
supplemental request, and FY 24 was the governor's current
amended budget.
2:16:03 PM
Representative Josephson recalled that one of the concepts
behind SB 91 [brought forth during the 32nd Legislature]
was to reduce the DOC budget, but the legislature decided
against passing the bill. He asked if the choice was part
of the reason for the state of the department's budget.
Ms. Winkelman responded that it was probably partially
responsible. She thought there were a myriad of different
reasons that caused overtime hours to increase within the
department, such as the pandemic. She thought it was due to
a combination of multiple factors.
Representative Hannan noted that between FY 23 and FY 24
there was a decrease of $9 million. She wondered about the
reason for the decrease. She did not think it was expected
that the number of individuals housed in institutions would
decrease.
2:18:02 PM
APRIL WILKERSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, responded that there were a few factors that
played into the difference between FY 23 and FY 24.
Primarily, the difference was related to one-time funding
items. There were some catastrophic failures experienced in
various facilities such as CCTV camera issues, which would
soon be replaced. There were multiple expenditures that
were considered one-time items in the FY 23 budget. The
department was hopeful that that some of the nationwide
economic issues would soon become less severe and that the
difference would be reduced by the beginning of FY 24.
Ms. West continued on slide 10, which showed the governor's
FY 24 amended budget including the programs and services
that were supported by the funding. She noted that the
Office of the Commissioner fell under the Division of
Administration and Support in addition to the DNA tracking
program.
Ms. West advanced to slide 11 and explained that the next
few slides would detail the major operating budget changes.
Co-Chair Johnson wondered what the difference was between
the version of slide 9 that included an error and the
corrected version of slide 9.
Ms. West responded that the numbers were correct for each
year within the chart but the bars did not appropriately
represent the changes from year to year.
Co-Chair Johnson appreciated the explanation.
Ms. West continued on slide 11. She explained that the
first bullet showed an increment to cover increases in
salary and health insurance. The fund allocation by fund
source was also included for the particular change.
Additionally, there was a fund transfer which would move
authority from Health and Rehabilitation Services (HARS) to
the Division of Institutions to cover the shortfalls within
the institutions.
Ms. West moved to slide 12. There was an increment request
for restorative justice funds and the slide showed how the
funds would be distributed amongst the various
institutions.
Ms. West advanced to slide 13, which reflected a number of
fund source changes. She highlighted two changes: a
reversal of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and an
annual allocation of restorative justice funds for the
Division of Physical Health Care.
Representative Coulombe referred to slide 11. She asked for
more information about the transfer authority from HARS to
the institutions.
Ms. West replied that the transfer from HARS to the
institutions was accomplished due to cost savings and
reductions within the HARS division.
Representative Coulombe asked the department to follow up
with additional details. She was concerned about the fact
that money would be saved in HARS but the savings would be
going to institutions. She urged the department to spend
the money on health and rehab.
Ms. West responded that the savings were related to cost
reduction efforts, such as operating an internal dialysis
center within the Goose Creek Correctional Center,
reductions in the costs of Hepatitis C prescriptions, and
judication contracts. She would provide details in writing.
Representative Coulombe commended the department for
finding cost savings. She reiterated her concern that the
savings were not going back to HARS and were instead being
put towards the institutions.
2:24:31 PM
Ms. West moved to slide 14, which showed the department's
budget request for FY 24. There was an increment request of
$250,000 within the Office of the Commissioner.
Additionally, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) had
created a non-permanent full-time investigator position to
support the agreement DOC had with DPS. The intent was to
investigate inmate deaths and ensure timely reporting of
the investigations and outcomes. An additional goal was to
establish a cooperative effort and streamline efficiencies
when there was potential inmate felony and misdemeanant
criminal activity.
Co-Chair Johnson asked how many employees were working
outside of Alaska.
Ms. Winkelman responded she thought it was about seven but
would follow up to confirm.
Co-Chair Edgmon referred to slide 14. He noted that he had
a private conversation with Ms. Winkelman a few days prior
and asked her to touch upon some of the topics that arose
during the conversation. The increment on the slide was a
meaningful addition that covered a broad range of elements
within the department. He thought more detailed information
would provide helpful context when the DOC subcommittee
provided its report at a later meeting.
Ms. Winkelman responded that when a crime occurred within a
facility, DOC would call upon DPS to investigate the crime.
When an Alaska State Trooper was available, the trooper
would handle the crime; however, the priority of the
troopers was to manage crimes in communities. She relayed
that DPS and DOC had collaborated to come up with an idea
to assign a trooper to a facility. There were an inordinate
amount of [inmate] deaths in 2022 and it was concerning.
The idea was to provide a consistent point of contact to
investigate deaths and to manage the misdemeanor and felony
charges that happened within the facilities. Assigning a
DPS employee would ensure that there was a consistent focus
on the occurrences within the facilities and it would allow
for better collaboration with other departments if there
were systemic elements that needed to be changed or further
examined. It was an opportunity to improve investigations
and provide better focus for law enforcement.
2:28:32 PM
Ms. Winkelman continued on slide 15, which relayed the
goals and objectives of DOC. Some of the goals were to
improve the health and well-being of staff and ensure that
inmates, defendants, probationers, and parolees left the
system in a better condition than when they entered.
Additionally, the department aimed to identify efficiencies
and resources to reduce recidivism.
Representative Josephson understood that correctional
officers had a desire for years to implement a process akin
to DPS's strategy for recruiting troopers. The strategy
would involve tasking correctional officers to speak to
potential recruits at locations such as job fairs and
schools. He asked how significant a role correctional
officers would play in recruitment.
Ms. Winkelman responded that the department established six
additional non-permanent positions to bring in retired
correctional officers to help with recruitment efforts. She
thought there was one retired correctional officer
currently performing recruitment duties and two active
correctional officers helping with the efforts. The
department had a presence at job fair events and encouraged
all staff to help with recruitment efforts. She felt that
there had been progress made by hiring a retired officer
for the position.
Representative Tomaszewski referred to slide 16 which
included photos of two drug dogs and the amount of
contraband found by the dogs. He asked where the contraband
was found.
Ms. Winkelman responded that the data on the slide was from
the previous year and the contraband was found by outside
entities such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA),
coastal inspectors, and parole officers. She emphasized
that it was not simply contraband found in facilities.
Co-Chair Johnson asked about the health and rehabilitative
services area within the [federal] 340B Drug Pricing
Program. She asked if future savings were anticipated.
Ms. Wilkerson responded that there had been a drop in
pharmaceutical costs, but the costs were beginning to
increase again. She would follow up with specific numbers.
Co-Chair Johnson commented that DOC made a request to the
legislature for funding for copiers and other similar
equipment to limit the amount of paper that circulated in
and out of the system. She thought that saturated paper was
used to transport drugs. She recalled that the legislature
declined to fund the request for equipment. She asked if
there was an update on the matter.
Ms. Wilkerson responded that the department received a
portion of funding to purchase copiers and it was able to
implement an inmate mail copy and delivery process within
the facilities. She relayed that the change had been
successful; however, the change had caused an increase in
contraband coming in through legal mail distribution and
the department was working on new solutions.
2:36:04 PM
Representative Coulombe referred to slide 13. She
understood that restorative justice funds showed a sharp
increase due to the size of the PFD in the previous year.
She asked if the monies awarded to victims were being
impacted.
Ms. Wilkerson responded that the allocation was in
alignment with other percentages and was not subtracting
from other monies.
Representative Coulombe asked if the department was hoping
that even if the PFD decreased, UGF would supplement the
decrease and the restorative justice funds would not be
impacted.
Ms. Wilkerson responded in the affirmative. It was an
annual adjustment that occurred within the department's
budget. The department adjusted funding amounts based upon
the status of the funds to maintain stability within the
budget.
Co-Chair Johnson reviewed the meeting agenda for the
following day.
ADJOURNMENT
2:38:34 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:38 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DOR FY2024 Department Overview HFIN 2.23.2023.pdf |
HFIN 2/23/2023 1:30:00 PM |
HB 39 |
| HFIN Committee DOC FY2024 BUDGET Overview 022323.pdf |
HFIN 2/23/2023 1:30:00 PM |
HB 39 |