Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/01/2003 08:01 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 2003
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 5
Establishing a task force to make recommendations regarding a
new design for the official seal of the State of Alaska.
- MOVED HCR 5 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 134
"An Act authorizing the Department of Corrections to enter into
agreements with municipalities for new or expanded public
correctional facilities in the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Bethel, and the Municipality of
Anchorage."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 161
"An Act allowing expenses of the correctional industries program
that may be financed from the correctional industries fund to
include the salaries and benefits of state employees."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 183
"An Act relating to retirement contributions and benefits under
the public employees' retirement system of certain juvenile
detention employees and juvenile correctional institution
employees."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HCR 5
SHORT TITLE:LEGIS. TASK FORCE ON DESIGN OF STATE SEAL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)JOULE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/03/03 0118 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/03/03 0118 (H) CRA, STA, FIN
03/06/03 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/06/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/06/03 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/07/03 0461 (H) CRA RPT 5DP 1AM
03/07/03 0461 (H) DP: ANDERSON, WOLF, KOOKESH,
CISSNA,
03/07/03 0461 (H) MORGAN; AM: SAMUELS
03/07/03 0461 (H) FN1: (LEG)
03/07/03 0477 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ANDERSON
03/27/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/27/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 134
SHORT TITLE:CORRECTIONAL FACILITY EXPANSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STOLTZE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/26/03 0306 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/26/03 0306 (H) STA, FIN
03/13/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 161
SHORT TITLE:CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES PROGRAM EXPENSES
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0431 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0431 (H) STA, FIN
03/05/03 0432 (H) FN1: (COR)
03/05/03 0432 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 183
SHORT TITLE:PERS BENEFITS FOR JUV INSTIT EMPLOYEES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WEYHRAUCH
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/10/03 0491 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/10/03 0491 (H) STA, FIN
04/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HCR 5.
JOHN GREELY, Staff
to Representative Reggie Joule
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HCR 5.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 134.
PORTIA PARKER, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner - Juneau
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HB 134.
JERRY BURNETT, Director
Administrative Services
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HB 134; presented HB 161.
DEVON MITCHELL, Debt Manager
Treasury Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 134, discussed
issues relating to the state's credit and revenue bonds with the
municipalities and answered questions.
JOHN DUFFY, Manager
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough in support of HB 134.
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff
to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 183 on behalf of
Representative Weyhrauch, sponsor.
GUY BELL, Director
Division of Retirement & Benefits
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding retirement
systems and addressed the fiscal note during the hearing on
HB 183.
BERNARD GATEWOOD
Alaska Juvenile Correctional Officers Association (AJCOA)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 183, asked that
juvenile correctional officers be included in the 20-year
retirement.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-34, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Holm,
Seaton, and Weyhrauch were present at the call to order.
Representatives Lynn and Berkowitz arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HCR 5-LEGIS. TASK FORCE ON DESIGN OF STATE SEAL
Number 0139
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 5, Establishing a task force to
make recommendations regarding a new design for the official
seal of the State of Alaska.
Number 0163
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HCR 5, gave a PowerPoint presentation. Saying there is no
symbol of Alaska older than the state seal, he offered his
belief that it is time to modernize it. Thus HCR 5 would create
a task force of eight citizens to provide for a focal point of
public involvement in designing a new seal. After the task
force reports back to the legislature in January [2004], the
legislature will decide whether to adopt the new design and
commission the engraver.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE surmised that most Alaskans probably don't
realize the current seal is the second one to represent the
government of Alaska. In 1885 the first appointed governor,
John Kinkead, designed a seal for the military district of
Alaska; in use approximately 25 years, it depicted the northern
lights, icebergs, and "an Alaska Native or two." He said the
only place he knows of where the district seal is still in use
is on the mantel of the fireplace of the governor's house, where
it was uncovered from under many layers of paint when the house
was restored in the 1980s.
Number 0366
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said then-Governor Walter Clark decided in
1910 that the district seal was inappropriate for several
reasons, including its depiction of icebergs, northern lights,
and Natives. Governor Clark hired a man to draw a rough sketch
to include more modern developments in Alaska; the result is the
design that was sent to Washington, D.C., for approval in 1910.
Around that time, however, someone in the Department of the
Interior commissioned a more refined drawing and sent that back
to Alaska. Governor Clark then commissioned an engraver to cast
the new seal, and it was delivered to the Secretary of Alaska on
February 25, 1911. In 1913, the seal was changed again when the
word "district" was changed to "territory." He said, "At
statehood, this seal became the official state seal and remained
so as part of the statutes."
Number 0518
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to an article in the April 1911
edition of the Alaska-Yukon Magazine that announced the new
seal. It read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Territory of Alaska will not permit any one to
forget that development and industrial progress are
its chief concern. Not even will public documents,
bearing the signature of the territorial chief
executive, be permitted [any] longer to convey, to
those who take note of them, the ancient conception of
the country as a land of Arctic temperature and the
home of an unique race of aborigines. Gov. Walter E.
Clark has had prepared a new official seal for the
Territory that will typify modern Alaska, as he
conceives it. While the general design of the old
seal is retained in the new, the whole effect has been
to emphasize the important industries of the
Territory, and to present them on the whole according
to their relative importance. The center of the seal
shows a range of mountains in the distance, above
which appears the rising sun, typifying in this
instance the dawn of the commercial and industrial era
in Alaska.
In the middle distance on the left is a large ore mill
and a wharf, with a train of ore cars and a spur track
leading toward the mill. In the harbor adjacent is a
large steamship, typifying commerce, and in another
part of the harbor is a fishing vessel, representing
one of the great industries. The forests, also,
appear in the middle distance on the left to represent
the lumber industry and resources; and there is a
harvest scene to typify agriculture.
Around the circumference of the seal appear the words:
"The Seal of the District of Alaska," the two lines of
which are separated on one side by salmon and on the
other side by a fur seal in place of the conventional
stars that are usually employed for this purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said those words from 1911 explain why the
official seal of Alaska looks the way it does. However, Alaska
is a far different place today, which leads to the question of
whether its seal should reflect those changes. For example, in
1910 Anchorage did not exist, and the state has outgrown several
industries and [developed new ones]. For example, do urban
Alaska and the oil and gas industry belong on the state seal?
And is the horse and plow the best representation of agriculture
in Alaska? Representative Joule noted that in 1910 [half] the
population of Alaska was Native, and yet any depiction of Alaska
Natives was dropped from the seal by Governor Clark. He added,
"We have time to fix that omission."
Number 0760
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said in 1885 and 1910, the idea of public
involvement in designing a seal was not considered. The
legislature can fix that oversight and provide a valuable
learning experience for Alaskan residents. He said HCR 5 "asks
all of us to use our imaginations." Saying Governor Clark had
looked to the future, Representative Joule asked that [the
legislature] do the same now by asking what symbols might have
currency with residents of Alaska 100 hundred years from now.
Number 0821
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE showed the committee some other state
logos, included in the handout of the PowerPoint presentation,
including an Alaska Department of Fish & Game logo in use from
1962 until 1977, and the ensuing black-and-white logo that
dropped the totem pole design. He noted that the design changed
again in 2001, when color was added and the lines were altered.
He also showed the committee the logo used by the Department of
Health & Social Services (DHSS), which was commissioned in the
early 1990s after extensive public involvement. In response to
a question by Chair Weyhrauch, he confirmed that the
commissioner of the DHSS was the one whose idea it was to [have
a seal designed with public involvement].
Number 0925
JOHN GREELY, Staff to Representative Reggie Joule, Alaska State
Legislature, in response to follow-up questions by Chair
Weyhrauch, offered to find out the history behind [the DHSS
seal]. He explained that the images discussed [on pages 3 and 4
of the PowerPoint handout] are examples of state symbols.
Number 1017
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the state seals of Hawaii,
Montana, and Idaho [page 5 of the PowerPoint handout]. He noted
that Hawaii's seal was adopted at statehood; an individual
changed the Montana seal without any regard to the thoughts of
the legislature; and the Idaho seal was the only official seal
designed by a woman, Emma Edwards Green, who took part in a
contest sponsored by the Idaho legislature shortly after
statehood in 1890 and won a $100 prize. In 1957, he noted, the
Idaho legislature updated the seal by adding symbols of the
state's main industries: mining, agriculture, and forestry.
Representative Joule said [HCR 5] would seek out public
involvement from people of all ages.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the fiscal note of [$53,000].
He mentioned a letter to the First Alaskans Institute requesting
a partnership in getting this funded to get it underway. Noting
that the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee
had suggested seeking a partnership, he indicated he'd asked
members of that committee to forward names of potential donors
with regard to underwriting the cost.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if a decision of "no change" is a
potential outcome [of the task force].
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE answered that it's possible, but he doubts
it would happen. He said aviation is a huge part of Alaska's
history. Referring to the omission of [symbols] of Alaska
Natives, he listed the following groups: Inupiat, Yupik,
Athabascan, Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and Aleut. He asked, "Is
there one that would capture them all?"
Number 1478
MR. GREELY mentioned suggestions over the years regarding room
on the rim of the seal and allowing [design features] to be
added without changing the [existing design] of the seal. He
indicated there are different ways of approaching a new design
and said it will be interesting to see what the public does if
it has a chance to weigh in.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked how the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting went during its hearing on
HCR 5 and whether anyone had testified on the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE answered no. He mentioned a letter of
support from the Heritage Foundation in Anchorage.
Number 1560
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Seaton for his comments as
cosponsor of the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the fiscal note will be taken up in
the House Finance Committee. He said he thinks public
involvement and bringing in the history of and foresight for the
State of Alaska are good things. He likened [the designing of
the state seal] to that for the state flag.
Number 1600
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HCR 5 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being no objection, HCR 5 was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 134-CORRECTIONAL FACILITY EXPANSION
[Contains discussion of SSHB 55]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 134, "An Act authorizing the Department of
Corrections to enter into agreements with municipalities for new
or expanded public correctional facilities in the Fairbanks
North Star Borough, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Bethel, and
the Municipality of Anchorage."
Number 1683
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 134, told the committee the unfortunate reality Alaska
faces is the need for more prison beds. [The legislature] has
different options for how to solve this need. He credited
Senator Lyda Green for her work on the Senate side on the issue.
He remarked, "I'm pushing the bill on this side to assist her
effort and [have] become attached to it since then."
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said the bill covers expansion [of prison
beds] in several areas of the state, including Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Bethel, and the Matanuska-Susitna area, which will
have the major expansion. Probably receiving the most attention
will be the Sutton expansion, he predicted, saying a facility
there is the right facility in the right place, and is supported
by the public. He said he thinks that through the healthy
process of competition with the private prison industry, the
[Department of Corrections (DOC)] has done a good job of
reducing costs and putting together a good proposal, including
documentation of how it can be accomplished.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE noted what the number of beds for each
facility would be as follows: Sutton, 1,250; Anchorage, 200;
Fairbanks, 80; and Bethel, 120. The spaces added in Anchorage
would be leased by the federal government, by U.S. Marshals.
That would be federal money providing Alaskan jobs, he added,
and would make the current Anchorage facility more efficient.
Number 1874
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE referred to a color-copy handout
[compiled by DOC]; the first page shows where the facilities are
located. He pointed to the "Inmate Population Statistics" [top
of page 2], which shows that by the year 2007, the total will be
5,500. Referring to [the "Institution Activity 1997-2002" chart
on the bottom of page 2], which shows admissions, transfers, and
the average daily count, he indicated that is what the debate
centers around with regard to private-versus-public prison
initiatives. He clarified that the competition is in regard to
housing people. He complimented DOC for lowering costs in
construction, which lowers the fiscal note. He mentioned a
proposed committee substitute (CS) [unspecified version].
Number 2080
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said the options regarding prisons are as
follows: SSHB 55, which would authorize the construction of a
private prison in Whittier; HB 134, the bill now being presented
by Representative Stoltze, supporting expansion of existing
facilities; and "the do-nothing option." He commented that
there is a lot of confusing information on the issue, including
some scare tactics that are not credible. He said one thing
that isn't clear to him is the economic impact on the state. He
requested from Representative Hawker [one of two sponsors of
SSHB 55] and Representative Stoltze a holistic view of how all
the options overlay, in order for the committee to decide the
best policy option for the state to consider.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE opined that those are legitimate
concerns.
Number 2207
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he has visited jails, and each room is
no more than 8 by 12 feet. He noted that the plans show a cost
of $110,000, $135,000, and $155,000 per bed. Saying it doesn't
take that much concrete to build a room. He added, "I don't
know, given out particular financial circumstance, that we need
to be building the Taj Mahal to house prisoners." He said he is
uncomfortable with this kind of expense. He asked
Representative Stoltze to comment.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE responded that he knows that the private
sector has expensive costs, as well. He deferred further
comment to the deputy commissioner of DOC.
Number 2355
PORTIA PARKER, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner -
Juneau, noted that the $155,000 is for the Bethel expansion
project. She explained that the cost of doing construction in
that rural area is higher. The Anchorage extension will be
federally funded; it won't affect the general fund or the fiscal
note. The Fairbanks facility is more expensive at $135,000.
She explained that the per-bed costs include the cost of the
entire facility. In response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch,
she clarified that the per-bed cost covers the cost of the
construction only for the entire facility, not the operating
costs, for example.
Number 2434
JERRY BURNETT, Director, Administrative Services, Department of
Corrections, added that the per-bed cost also includes the cost
of design, utilities, and new fencing - "all the soft and hard
costs of construction."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH surmised, "To the turnkey."
MR. BURNETT concurred. He commented that the plan is similar to
one used in other places in the U.S.
Number 2467
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked Mr. Burnett if he would provide the
committee with a square-foot cost.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the standard for the industry is per
square-foot or per bed.
MS. PARKER answered both.
Number 2500
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked for comparisons of construction
costs in Alaska with the following: elsewhere in the country, a
private office building in Anchorage, and some of the University
construction.
MR. BURNETT said the cost of construction is just over $400 per
square foot.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that a decent residential home in
Anchorage, not including the garage, costs about $100 per square
foot.
MR. BURNETT offered to produce the numbers that Representative
Berkowitz had previously requested. He noted that the plan for
Alaska was based upon a 35 percent higher cost than similar
projects built in the Lower 48.
Number 2586
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if it is correct to assume that a policy
issue implicit in [HB 134] is that a larger correctional
facility is much more economic than building smaller facilities
in many parts of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered in the affirmative. He noted
that the state already owns the land and that the plans are "in
a site that's not going to be contentious."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that "class A" office space
costs $200 to $300 per square foot to construct. He asked what
added elements in a prison would cause the costs to go up.
MR. BURNETT replied that there are a number of specialized
materials used in a prison facility such as automatic doors,
special prison toilets and showers, hardware that has to be very
durable, and solid concrete walls versus sheetrock, for example.
Number 2665
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that a policy question which the
legislature must address is whether to house prisoners in Alaska
or Outside. He questioned at what point "critical mass" is
reached and a decision must be made.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE remarked that the Arizona facility seems
to have value as an "escape valve" now; however, it can't meet
Alaska's needs regarding bookings. He said much shorter-term
[inmates] are being sent to the Arizona facility. Predicting
that it won't be much longer before that facility won't be able
to meet Alaska's needs, he mentioned the added cost of
transferring prisoners back and forth.
Number 2743
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said one problem he has always had
about sending prisoners Outside is that it means exporting
capital; dollars are not circulating within the economy. He
asked if any analysis has been done regarding the cost to the
state's economy because of the Arizona facility when the
"multiplier effect" is included.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered, "I don't know that number. I
know the one on the face is $20 million, and that certainly
multiplies that." He opined that there's a point at which the
value of the state's having its own institutions must be
considered.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that's what he was suggesting.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reiterated that the policy decision is in regard
to the economic benefit to the state of building a prison in
Alaska, whether it's public or private.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he wants to see the jobs in the
state. He posited that it is probably better in the long term
for the state to own its own facility.
Number 2851
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the state might be putting $20
million into Arizona right now; however, if the investment were
put into Alaska - even if [running its own prison] was, on the
surface, more expensive - the state would be getting some kind
of return, based on property and corporate taxes and the benefit
to the municipalities. He asked that those calculations be
included in the analysis he'd requested previously.
Number 2881
MR. BURNETT referred to an economic impact assessment [included
in the committee packet] that was prepared for the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough by Northern Economics Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE remarked that he has tried not to dwell
on things that benefit the Matanuska-Susitna ("Mat-Su") Borough;
he opined that the issue is a larger, statewide concern.
Number 2910
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Representative Stoltze, "Are you
including booking facilities in the Mat-Su at all, or is this
strictly older facilities?"
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE mentioned Mat-Su and said there is a pre-
trial facility not too far from there. He said, "The Anchorage
facility is the more appropriate function for the Anchorage
area, and the Bethel facility also performs that function." He
added that the Sutton facility is a longer-term facility.
MR. BURNETT, in response to a request for clarification from
Representative Seaton, stated, "One thing that an Outside
facility cannot economically handle is short-term prisoners and
pre-sentence prisoners."
TAPE 03-34, SIDE B
Number 2981
MR. BURNETT indicated transportation costs for sending prisoners
to an Outside facility are greater than the savings from
[holding them in Alaska]. He said he has been working on trying
to do an accurate analysis "to get a number which is the maximum
at any point we could economically send out." He mentioned some
data-quality issues and specific sentence times. He said
currently his best estimate is about 1,500 inmates who may meet
long enough sentence requirements to send Outside. He said some
[inmates] have mental illness or other health or behavioral
reasons why they can't be sent. He noted that at some point,
the state is spending more money to send [inmates] Outside. He
added, "It would make little sense to send someone to Arizona
for a 4-month sentence, and right now we've [been] sending
people that have a 14-month sentence."
MS. PARKER clarified that the state is getting to where it
doesn't have a lot of options to send additional inmates to
Arizona and still have it be cost-effective. She noted that an
effort is made to consolidate the number of transports [for
purposes of saving money]. Regarding the Bethel and Fairbanks
expansions, she said, "Those are almost 90 to 100 percent pre-
sentence." The prisoners being transported out of Bethel for
hearings in superior court or additional court appearances, for
example, have to be transported right back because they haven't
been sentenced yet.
Number 2839
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked why the Anchorage facility, but not the
Bethel facility, is federally funded.
MS. PARKER explained that the U.S. Marshals requested the
capacity in Anchorage, where most of their federal detainees
are. She said [the state] has a contract [with the U.S.
Marshals] to supply 80 beds at a per-diem rate; however, that
takes up space in a state correctional facility. She noted that
the federal detainee number is expected to increase from 120 to
about 200, which is why [the U.S. Marshals] are going through
the federal government to request additional funds to add on to
the Anchorage jail.
Number 2789
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he has heard that the state transfers
[inmates with] medical problems to Arizona when possible,
because it is less expensive to treat them there. He inquired
about the distance to medical facilities from Sutton, for
example, versus Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE responded that the Sutton facility is
probably within 15 minutes of the Palmer facility for Valley
Hospital, where a $80-million to $90-million hospital expansion
is underway. He noted that the other option [is the proposed
private prison facility] in Whittier, which is farther from
Anchorage and requires a trip fraught with more potential delays
than a trip on the expressway between Palmer and Anchorage, or
from Sutton to downtown Palmer.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said DOC has said its prisoner base is
[in] Anchorage; therefore, all the other locations would be away
from that base. He said he is trying to figure out the amount
of time that will be necessary to transfer [prisoners] for court
appearances, for example. He said although he is not opposed to
this project, he is trying to look at the overall policy
regarding where the majority of Alaska's prison housing should
be sited. One consideration is this, he noted: that which is
economical to build may not be economical to operate.
Number 2620
MR. BURNETT reminded Representative Seaton that the facility in
Sutton would primarily be used for long-term, stable prisoners,
so the transportation in and out would be less frequent. He
also noted that it would be sited next to a medium-security and
a minimum-security facility; therefore, some of the staff could
be used mutually. He noted that an Alaska State Trooper
attachment and a court are in Palmer, a few minutes away.
Number 2566
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he'd like to see an analysis of where
the prison population is being generated and how many times
transports are necessary. He predicted that what may happen,
because of the growth of the prison population, is that Alaska
may soon be sending [inmates] back to Arizona, and Alaska will
be stuck with the shorter-term prisoners who can't be
transported back and forth from Arizona.
Number 2433
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked for clarification of the difference in
needs between pre-sentence and pre-trial prisoners as it
pertains to duration of time and the facility, for example.
MR. BURNETT responded that pre-trial [prisoners] are clearly
short-term, but couldn't answer whether there is a difference in
the facility use between the two. He said pre-sentence
[prisoners] typically are still awaiting sentence after a
criminal proceeding; that wait is usually short-term, and long-
term custody has not yet been determined. In response to a
follow-up question by Representative Holm, he explained that
pre-trial [prisoners] have a "higher need." For example, he
noted that the people coming in are often unstable and a higher
security level is needed. Also, there are booking needs.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE offered his belief that more attention is
given to a pre-trial [prisoner] than at any other level.
Number 2407
MS. PARKER remarked that there are prisoners in Anchorage and
Fairbanks who are there for 16 to 18 months awaiting trial and
sentencing. She added, "So, you try not to move them, because
you know we're going to have to move them right back."
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, based on the 15 "ride-alongs" that he
has done, said the higher level of staffing is necessary. He
explained, "These guys are drugged up or hopped up, and they
don't want to go in through that first locking door." He added
that he has seen some "pretty wild and wooly scenes."
Number 2353
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM returned to the subject of cost of
construction. He asked, "Who's the fox that's watching the hen
house?" He opined that the State of Alaska has a tendency to
overbuild, that it has been give a lot of free license by
architects and engineers who get more [money] the bigger the
structure is. He asked who the watchdog is for the people of
Alaska. He opined that the state needs to be building adequate
buildings, protecting its population, and incarcerating
appropriately; however, it doesn't need to be building the
finest facilities man can possibly build.
Number 2268
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that he knows inadequate building
methods have resulted in the state's having infrastructure,
maintenance, and repair bills that don't get funded later on.
He said it's a conundrum.
MR. BURNETT said any construction that the state does will
involve a competitive bid situation. He noted that DOC came up
with the $135,000 per-bed cost at its first consideration, based
on standard construction estimates and working with [the
Department of Transportation & Public Safety (DOT&PF)]. He
referred to a blueprint [hanging on the wall] provided by one of
the largest private prison companies, and he said [the
department] would like to find ways to build cheaper [than the
cost proposed for the plan in the blueprint].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that is the answer he wanted to hear.
MR. BURNETT said the department's facility person has been
tasked with looking at better and cheaper ways to build.
MS. PARKER added, "And we've directed them not to go out and
redesign, [but] to look at what's working in other areas of the
country. This company's also built for ... prisons and for ...
a lot of state facilities." She said the department doesn't
want anything above and beyond the absolute needs of the
facility, but is looking for a good facility at the lowest
possible cost.
Number 2156
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he is willing to cut corners on
prisoner comfort, but not on personnel safety.
Number 2138
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what alternative to "hard beds"
the department may be exploring. For example, he listed the
following: ankle bracelets, house arrests, "soft beds," and
"Nygren."
MS. PARKER responded that when the current administration came
in, there were plans already in place for using electronic
monitoring. She mentioned a classification process whereby the
probation officer works with the central classification to
determine the appropriate [conditions of release], including
electronic monitoring and being released into [community
residential care] (CRC) and halfway houses. She said the
department is implementing that to the greatest extent it thinks
possible while still protecting the public.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Did you tell me what percentage
of prisoners are on this sort of alternative?"
MS. PARKER, with input from Mr. Burnett, provided the following
estimates from last week: 168 on electronic monitoring, 730 in
community residential care, and 4,000 on probation and parole.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that those numbers are under
direct supervision of the department. He asked what percentage
are in hard beds and what percentage aren't.
MR. BURNETT replied that of the people in direct supervision of
the department, less than half are in hard beds at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the department has had
significant problems with those who aren't.
MS. PARKER offered his understanding that Representative
Berkowitz was asking about those people who are considered to be
in the custody of the department, including those in electronic
monitoring, CRCs, halfway houses, and institutions. She said,
"The percentage in our institutions would be much higher." She
added, "Community residential centers - same as a halfway
house."
Number 1950
DEVON MITCHELL, Debt Manager, Treasury Division, Department of
Revenue, in response to a request by Chair Weyhrauch to describe
his job and how he can be helpful to the committee on this
issue, revealed that he is currently working on the $461 million
general obligation to the state that was authorized November 5,
2002. Noting that the state bond committee is charged with
monitoring the state's credit, he said the issue presently being
discussed by that committee - in addition to other proposals to
build additional prison space - impacts the state's credit. He
explained:
This particular proposal would have ... three
municipal entities issuing lease revenue bonds that
would be backed by a revenue stream that would be
provided by the general fund of the state. And so, as
such, if you were a person interested in buying these
pieces of paper, you're going to look at where the
money comes from, follow it right back to the general
fund, and that's where I would be of some assistance
to the committee, if you had questions on ... that
front.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Mr. Mitchell if he has done any
comparative analysis regarding the state's indebtedness because
of its use of a private prison facility Outside, or in regard to
the proposed private prison in Whittier or the prison
construction proposed in HB 134.
MR. MITCHELL responded that the state has not incurred any debt
for the Arizona facility because it is contract-based. The two
proposals presently in the legislature [HB 134 and SSHB 55] will
have fiscal impact. He noted that there are some constraints in
the legislation related to the private facility [SSHB 55] that
are of concern. First, there isn't a dollar amount identified
for the capital portion of [SSHB 55]; thus there is a concern
that this leaves a lot of leeway for a city like Whittier to try
to interpret it. Also, [SSHB 55] has a minimum required term on
the financing of 25 years, which also is a concern to the
department.
MR. MITCHELL offered the background that the states in aggregate
are in a negative period right now regarding credit ratings.
Approximately half are looking at downgrades or have been
downgraded, he said, because there is an imbalance between
spending and revenues by about $100 billion across the states
due to a decline in the economy and the reliance of people on
capital gain receipts that have "gone away." He said, "The
State of Alaska, I believe, is quite fortunate to be able to
maintain our credit ratings with our upcoming sale." He noted
that the State of Alaska is much more stable; however, any
additional use of the state's credit needs to be carefully
considered.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Have you analyzed the numbers
for the Arizona facility at all?"
MR. MITCHELL answered no.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he doesn't know if anyone present has done
so, but that information is available in the SSHB 55 file.
Number 1750
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned Arizona and $20 million. He
indicated that [the State of Alaska] is paying for the profits,
as well as the Arizona taxes. He mentioned [paying] "above and
beyond the operating costs." He added, "And that number, to me,
would be interesting."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH told Mr. Mitchell it is good to know he is
available as a resource.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON mentioned state bonds and revenue bonds as
the two ways of financing a facility. He asked, "Is your
analysis that if an equal amount was spent on these, is there a
difference in the impact upon the state's bond rating or on its
credit rating from those two different sources?"
MR. MITCHELL asked whether Representative Seaton was referring
to the two proposals before the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered yes. He added, "To make it easy,
just think of them as being the identical amount of money, if we
don't have the amount specified in the Whittier one. ... What
I'm trying to do is figure out if ... you think that there's
going to be a different influence from revenue bonds with the
municipalities, or state bond indebtedness."
MR. MITCHELL responded that he believes the current proposals
have a fairly similar financing mechanism; it would either be
Whittier with a private prison issuing debt or, "with this bill,
the other municipalities." He said:
If your question is, would I ... personally be more
comfortable if it was the State of Alaska issuing the
debt, I'd say yes, because it's the State of Alaska's
credit and, as such, who knows it better? A
municipality doesn't know the State of Alaska like the
State of Alaska knows the State of Alaska. The
reading analysts that are going to look at the credit
are the folks that I deal with on a fairly regular
basis.
If your question was, is there a cost difference in
the credit prospectus, I think this is going to be
state supported obligation, and so that means that
each year the legislature's going to come in and say,
"Are we going to appropriate money to continue to have
that building in wherever to house prisoners" -
recognizing that there's some additional things that
might happen to you besides losing that prison if you
fail to appropriate. So there is an essentiality
issue and an ability to use your facility, and so
that's a consideration when these folks are looking at
this. Obviously, the case has been made that we have
a clear need for ... prison space in the state of
Alaska. And so, I think there is an essentiality
otherwise.
Number 1540
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked, if there were two set of bonds
being issued, whether one of those two sources would have a
lower interest rate.
MR. MITCHELL replied that he'd tend to argue that because of
name recognition, a State of Alaska issuance would produce a
lower interest rate than a City of Whittier issuance would, even
though the credit is fundamentally the same. He added, "It
would be incremental."
Number 1470
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there is a difference between
rates, generally, on revenue versus general obligation bonds.
MR. MITCHELL answered yes. He explained that the state's
general obligation bond rating is "Aa-Aa2." He added:
The type of ratings that we ... achieve with state-
supported obligations, like what's being considered,
are in the A1, "A-plus" category. And so there's an
additional cost, which, depending on the market you're
in, would range -- ... well, 20 to 25 basis points
would be the additional cost of not putting your full
faith and credit on the line.
Number 1410
JOHN DUFFY, Manager, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, thanked the
committee for addressing overcrowded prisons and Representative
Stoltze for sponsoring HB 134. He said the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, the cities of Palmer and Wasilla, and their local
chambers of commerce support HB 134. He explained that the
borough believes investing in expansion of its existing publicly
owned and operated facilities is the most appropriate approach
to relieve overcrowding of those facilities. He said HB 134
will allow prisoners to be closer to their families and support
network, thereby increasing the chances of rehabilitation;
Alaskans will benefit from increased jobs and business
opportunities, state funds will be invested in Alaskan
communities, and a multiplier effect from these investments will
allow those communities to develop their infrastructure when
it's based on local economies.
MR. DUFFY returned to the economic impact assessment, page 3-3,
and asked members to look at tables [3-1 and 3-2] at their
leisure. He remarked, "We identified the economic impact with
each facility, as well as the entire economic impact throughout
the state." He gave examples showing that approximately $250
million would be generated during the construction phase, as
well as $73 million generated in sales and services throughout
the state during the operation phase.
Number 1253
MR. DUFFY reported that the borough has adequate health care
facilities. He reiterated Representative Stoltze's earlier
mention of an upcoming expansion of a [hospital] facility by
building a 76-bed facility, with the ability to expand to 130
beds. He said there is a district court facility in Palmer, as
well as other support systems near the Sutton facility. [HB 134
was held over.]
HB 161-CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES PROGRAM EXPENSES
Number 1136
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 161, "An Act allowing expenses of the
correctional industries program that may be financed from the
correctional industries fund to include the salaries and
benefits of state employees."
Number 1099
JERRY BURNETT, Director, Administrative Services, Department of
Corrections (DOC), presented HB 161, saying it is a simple bill
that allows for the correctional industry's product revenues to
pay for state employees' salaries. Current state statute allows
for the correctional industry's revenues to pay for all other
administrative costs of the program. He revealed that state
employees' salaries in "this program" are approximately $960,000
in fiscal year (FY 04) general fund revenues. He said the
administration would like the ability to use the revenues from
the correctional industry's product sales to pay for those state
employees' salaries, thus reducing the general-fund cost of the
program.
MR. BURNETT noted that the correctional industry has eight
"product service" enterprises operating now: Juneau Commercial
Laundry, Fairbanks Garment/Flat Goods Shop, Kenai Office
Furniture Systems Plant, Eagle River Garment Shop, Kenai Metals
Plant, Seward Wood Furniture Plant, Palmer Auto Body Shop, and
Juneau Staph Guard [Hospital Laundry]. He said 14 state
employee product managers work for DOC in those industries, and
approximately $4.1 million in product revenues is generated
annually. In response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch, he said
he guesses that [the Juneau Staph Guard Hospital Laundry] is in
cooperative with Alaska Laundry; it provides sterile laundry
services to the hospital and medical clinics.
Number 0843
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that [page 1, beginning on line 10] would
amend [AS 33.32.020(a)] as follows:
The commissioner of corrections shall prepare a report
annually on all activities and balances of the fund
and notify the legislature that the report is
available.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the report for 2003 has been prepared
yet.
MR. BURNETT replied that he hasn't seen it and doesn't know the
status. In further response, he said it would be a
communication from the commissioner. He added that the
information is in [the department's] detailed budget documents,
["Component: Correctional Industries Product Cost," included in
the committee packet]. He also confirmed that [the information
in the budget documents] is more or less where the
commissioner's report is derived from.
Number 0745
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated his understanding that prison
industries provide goods and services to the state. He asked,
"Shouldn't that be reflected somewhere in the fiscal note?"
MR. BURNETT answered that it would only be reflected in the
fiscal note if there were a change in prices or cost to the
state as a result of HB 161. He said that isn't the intent. In
further response, he said there is net income; there is
approximately $300,000 in the product cost fund available at the
end of this fiscal year.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how much furniture is sold [that
is made by the prison industry], for example, and what the
equivalent commercial cost would be.
MR. BURNETT said he didn't know, but offered to provide that
information. He conveyed his belief that the industry's prices
are competitive at this point. He remarked, "We need to work on
our marketing and get [the product] out." He added that there
is the potential for other customers besides the state.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ related his understanding that [the
industry can sell to] the following: an agency of the federal
government, a political subdivision of the state, other states
or their political subdivisions, and nonprofit organizations.
Number 0657
MR. BURNETT said, "We are also allowed to sell to ... private
individuals [and] private companies if we are not competing with
private industry in that venture."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded, "That being the case, I'm
curious why the approach of the administration here is so sudden
- why there's not a transition provided for in this
legislation."
MR. BURNETT replied that the fiscal policy driving [the bill] is
that general fund spending needs to be reduced. He said the
department believes there are significant opportunities to
increase revenues within this component.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how the department plans to do
that when it gets rid off the 14 people who are currently
managing the program.
MR. BURNETT answered that the fiscal note shows that the
department would be replacing the money and paying the people
with product revenues, rather than getting rid of the 14 people.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded as follows:
I'm a little confused. The current cost is $960,000.
You're having $150,000 coming in. It would seem to
me, when [there is] $810,000 in debts, that you're not
going to be able to afford all the people [who] are
currently in the program. If you can't pay people who
are in the program, how are you going to continue to
expand the program and market it?
Number 0548
Mr. BURNETT answered that Representative Berkowitz was making
some assumptions that aren't necessarily correct. One is in
regard to the $150,000. He mentioned $300,000 in seed money to
start paying people. He added, "So we would need to develop
additional revenues beyond the current net revenues, somewhere
in the neighborhood of $660,000, to ... retain all 14 of these
people for this year."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if [DOC] has a plan to do that.
MR. BURNETT said he isn't personally in charge of this program,
but believes the commissioner has been working with "some
entities. He added, "We are working on that very plan." In
further response, Mr. Burnett confirmed that the plan isn't
complete yet.
Number 0457
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it seems one reasons for having
this program - which is on thin ice with lack of a plan at this
point - is for the rehabilitation of prisoners. He commented,
"I was wondering what plans the administration has, the
department has, to continue the rehabilitation efforts at the
eight correctional industries' product service enterprises -
what you will do to facilitate rehabilitation, which is a
constitutional mandate."
MR. BURNETT related his understanding that, at this point, there
is no intent to eliminate any of these programs specifically;
therefore, he believes the programs would continue to the extent
possible. He noted that the commissioner has been in contact
with the Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD) and
has been working with them regarding job rehabilitation, which
is also in the Alaska correctional industry statute. He
mentioned job-training programs and said, "So we would be
actively looking for any opportunities to continue
rehabilitation."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the budget makes provision for
expenditure of the $300,000 that's in reserves.
MR. BURNETT answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what would happen if that
[$300,000] were exhausted.
MR. BURNETT reiterated that the department intends to do
everything possible to increase product revenues. Barring that,
he said, it would have to look at other alternatives to
providing the service.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked when the plan would be ready. He
requested that Mr. Burnett make it available to the committee at
that point.
MR. BURNETT said, "To the extent that that plan becomes
available, I see no reason why we couldn't provide it to you."
He noted that the manager of the correctional industries is
planning to retire this month; therefore, recruiting will begin
for a new manager. He said part of the previously discussed
plan will "come with the new correctional industries manager."
In response to a comment by Chair Weyhrauch, he noted that the
commissioner who is working on some of the information that the
committee has asked to receive is presently out of town.
Number 0177
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked Mr. Burnett to explain the purpose of
correctional industries.
MR. BURNETT defined correctional industries as "a mix of job
training and activities for inmates in the correctional
institutions." He explained that [the inmates] produce goods
and services that are intended to "pay for themselves," and they
achieve some job skills that hopefully are marketable upon their
release. He noted also that the jobs keep the inmates busy, and
a busy inmate is "better" to keep track of than those who are
idle.
Number 0092
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM referred to the page marked "78" in the
previously indicated "Correctional Industries Product Cost"
handout [the "Component Financial Summary" page]. He asked if
he interpreted correctly that it shows a budget component of
over $4 million.
MR. BURNETT said that is correct. He explained that this amount
would be the total program [cost] in FY 04. In response to a
follow-up question, he noted that the sales this year were
approximately $150,000 more than the costs - "the programs, less
the state employees, which are not paid for."
TAPE 03-35, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. BURNETT, in response to additional follow-up questions,
clarified that the employees presently aren't paid for by
product revenues, but are paid for by general fund dollars.
They are listed under "professional industries administration."
He said, "We would like to use product cost revenues to pay the
state employees who manage the program."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted that there is only $150,000 more than
production costs; therefore, there is a shortfall.
MR. BURNETT [agreed that there is a shortfall] without producing
additional revenues; in order to continue the programs, DOC
would have to produce additional product revenue. In further
response, he said DOC needs to have the authorization [from the
legislature] to pay its state employee product managers from
[product revenues] so that when the department is able to
produce additional revenues, it can use that money rather than
general fund money to pay those state employees.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM surmised, "Then this is a precursor to being
able to function this way."
MR. BURNETT said, "Right. We want to function as a full
enterprise fund so that it pays all its own costs."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he agrees with that.
Number 0200
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he has no problems with the
authorization to use excess funds to pay salaries and benefits;
however, if the outcome of adopting HB 161 might be that if the
excess revenues are not sufficient, the managers and, therefore,
the program - which is an integral part of rehabilitating the
people in the states prisons - are eliminated, then he would be
opposed to it. He said it is important to remember that the
people in prison will be back out on the street, and
rehabilitation is [an important] goal.
Number 0374
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH related his understanding that it isn't the
intent of those introducing the bill to do away with the
programs if there are no funds; rather, it is to allow the
flexibility to pay salaries and benefits of state employees from
proceeds of the fund.
MR. BURNETT concurred.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if it would be all right with the
administration if the committee included a letter with the bill
[stating the sentiments that have been discussed].
MR. BURNETT responded, "I can't speak to that at this point."
Number 0428
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would like the administration to
[respond] to the committee regarding whether they would receive
and agree with a letter [of intent] from the committee. He
said, "I think that's a fundamental policy issue that we need to
decide here. And if we are misunderstanding or miscommunicating
with the administration on the outcome of this program, I need
that before I could go forward." [HB 161 was held over.]
The committee took an at-ease from 9:43 a.m. to 9:44 a.m.
HB 183-PERS BENEFITS FOR JUV INSTIT EMPLOYEES
Number 0525
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 183, "An Act relating to retirement contributions
and benefits under the public employees' retirement system of
certain juvenile detention employees and juvenile correctional
institution employees."
Number 0610
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Alaska
State Legislature, introduced HB 183 on behalf of Representative
Weyhrauch, sponsor. She noted that Alaska's current statutes
provide that peace officers and fire fighters are entitled to a
20-year retirement. However, juvenile justice officers
participate in a 30-year retirement system. The proposed
legislation would add them to the statute governing the
retirement system of peace officers and fire fighters.
Ms. Sylvester said it is the belief of the sponsor and [those in
the juvenile justice system] that this group was erroneously
left out of the 20-year retirement system, and it is time to
correct the inequity.
MS. SYLVESTER said the Division of Juvenile Justice provides the
people of the state with a wide range of restorative justice
services in which juvenile offenders are held accountable.
Furthermore, they work to repair the harm to those impacted by
their crimes, and they provide offenders and their families with
opportunities to develop new skills in order to be productive,
contributing members of society. Ms. Sylvester noted that over
the past several years, the legislature has funded construction
and operation of new juvenile correctional facilities, in
support of the public safety component of the division's
restorative justice mission. However, buildings in and of
themselves don't make a community safer; rather, it is the
people who staff these facilities. She explained:
This staff is charged with guarding, controlling, and
confronting the most hardened juvenile offenders. The
employees who work with juvenile delinquents face the
same dangers and hazards as adult correctional
officers. The job title of these people, ... "youth
counselors," [belies] what actually goes on in their
field. The public mistakenly believes that these
people see kids in offices by appointment to counsel
them. And nothing could be further from the truth.
These workers provide 24-hour correctional care and
custody related to the incarceration of people against
their will.
Number 0783
MS. SYLVESTER explained the duties of juvenile officers:
Each day the youth counselors are involved in a chain
of custody with other law enforcement personnel across
the state. These kids are brought to the facilities
in handcuffs in the back of police cars; they've been
arrested for a crime. They arrive at the facilities
in an angry, agitated, assaultive state. Oftentimes
they are violent or intoxicated. The officers turning
these youths over to the youth counselors are given
... body armor, guns, and chemical deterrents in order
to deal with the offenders. Youth counselors are not
given any of these things; they use their skill and
their training and the relationships that they've
formed with the kids, in order to conduct their duty
safely.
These counselors also exchange custody of minors
between facilities. They accept custody from juvenile
probation officers out in the field who are in a 20-
year retirement system; oftentimes, they assist in
those arrests, as juvenile probation officers request
their assistance. Some of these [youth] offenders are
charged with very serious and violent crimes, and they
spend between 30 and ... 90 days inside the detention
facilities before being transferred to an adult
facility.
In addition to custody transfer, some of the kids stay
in the facilities until they're 20 years old. In that
situation, the youth counselors are actually dealing
with housing adults in their facilities. Also, as
mandated by statute, youth counselors make independent
arrests in the community in pursuit of the juveniles
that have absconded from the facilities or from an
escort to a medical or service transport.
The duties of the youth counselor position requires
solid training and excellent skill development in
handling resistive clients. They have to have a peak
mental and physical condition; ... these are ...
qualities that tend to wane as we age. ... These are
the exact reasons why the State of [Alaska] made a
policy decision ... [regarding] the fire fighters and
police officers to give them an opportunity to retire
early, because these jobs are very dangerous and
hazardous, and they have a short lifespan. And it's
not the same type of a deal as sitting at a desk and
working with your brain.
Number 1000
GUY BELL, Director, Division of Retirement & Benefits,
Department of Administration, testified that HB 183 would
convert juvenile correctional officers from the "30-and-out"
system to the "20-and-out" retirement system presently offered
to police officers and fire fighters. It would grant that
service retroactive to each individual's date of hire as a
juvenile correctional officer, he noted, by allowing him/her to
claim that service but not pay the full actuarial cost. He
stated, "The difference in what they would have contributed ...
as peace officers, versus other employees, is required of them,
but that doesn't cover the full cost to the retirement system of
making this conversion."
MR. BELL turned to the fiscal note, which he described as self-
explanatory. He said it adds an annual cost to the state of
just over $1 million; the reason is included in the fiscal note.
He explained, "The cost is spread across state employee
salaries, so we don't show a dollar amount in the columns; we
show an asterisk because it's a rate that each employer will
need to pay on personal services."
Number 1100
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked what other employees are now allowed
[retirement after] 20 years.
MR. BELL listed fire fighters, police officers, probation
officers, and adult correctional officers. He said there was a
short period when fisheries biologists and certain other Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) employees were in the 20-and-
out system; however, they were removed in approximately 1983.
Number 1158
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked about other states.
MR. BELL explained that each [state's] retirement system has its
own criteria for improved retirement benefits or earlier
retirement provisions, for example. He said some states do
offer peace officers 20-year retirement, while some offer them
25-year retirements. In terms of the definition of "peace
officer," Mr. Bell told Representative Berkowitz he'd have to do
some analysis and get back to him regarding that.
Number 1202
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if the committee was considering the
issue of a 20-year retirement at a 37.5-hour workweek or a 40-
hour workweek.
MR. BELL said he didn't know.
Number 1275
BERNARD GATEWOOD, Alaska Juvenile Correctional Officers
Association (AJCOA), who works as superintendent of the
Fairbanks Youth Facility, Division of Juvenile Justice,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), listed his past
positions as a Youth Counselor I and II, which he said are
equivalent to DOC's Correctional Officer I and II, respectively,
and as a Youth Counselor III at the Johnson Youth Center in
Juneau and in a facility in Anchorage. He mentioned being a
unit leader, equivalent to a lieutenant in DOC.
MR. GATEWOOD said AJCOA is a group of dedicated and determined
juvenile justice workers and supporters whose sole mission is to
correct an inequity that has existed for many years: the
omission of youth counselors, unit leaders, and superintendents
of juvenile institutions from the 20-year peace officer
retirement system. He elaborated:
It is kind of incredible to me that we're not included
in the 20-year system, because we have the law on our
side through the statutes. The statutes clearly ...
identify youth counselors as peace officers with
respect to process, service, and making arrests ...
[under] AS 47.12.270. And the facts are that youth
counselors do the exact same things that correctional
officers in DOC do.
In the statutes, again, [AS] 18.65.290, it talks about
the definition of a correctional officer being
appointed by the commissioner of corrections, their
duties being to provide custody, care, security,
control, and discipline of persons charged or
convicted of offenses against the state. And that's
the same thing that youth counselors do, with a slight
difference: juveniles are not convicted; they are
"adjudicated," and it's the same thing as being
convicted. And we are not appointed by the
commissioner of corrections because we're in the
Department of Health and Social Services.
But you don't differentiate on the benefits between
the commissioner of DOC and [DHSS]; they get the same
benefits package. And that's what we're asking for.
It seems as though we have been handcuffed - excuse
the pun - by the term "youth counselor." [We] think
that's a very misleading term; it doesn't really
identify exactly what we do. We are, in fact,
juvenile correctional officers. It seems as though
sometimes we were left out of the family inheritance
because we have a different name.
There's a large disparity between workers of the same
duties, just in different departments. We urge you to
correct this inequity. Do the right thing: put us in
the 20-year retirement system, just like probation
officers, just like correctional officers, whose work
is the same as ours.
Number 1528
MR. HOLM thanked Mr. Gatewood for a prior tour he had given him
through his facility. He asked Mr. Gatewood to compare the
threat involved with youths versus adults.
MR. GATEWOOD said the threat that youth counselors face on a
daily basis is similar to what the adult correctional officers
face and, in some cases, similar to what a police officer faces.
For example, kids come to the facility in handcuffs, brought by
police officers or state troopers. Sometimes they are revved up
on drugs, very angry, and impulsive; oftentimes, they are
suffering from mental illnesses and don't process information
the way someone else might. For the most part, he said, they
are unsure of what their future holds.
MR. GATEWOOD told the committee that when a youth counselor goes
to a youth's room in the morning, he/she doesn't know what
exactly what [will happen]. He revealed that youth counselors
have been struck, have been the subject of plots to escape, and
have received bodily harm. He explained that the kids fashion
knives out of any kind of sharp object. A day for a youth
counselor can be quite dangerous, he concluded.
MR. GATEWOOD said youth counselors who work on the unit with the
kids work a 40-hour week; it's rare for them to have a [Saturday
and Sunday] off. Shifts run from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., 3 p.m. to
11 p.m., and 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. He told the committee that the
unit leaders and the superintendents work a 37.5-hour week. In
response to a question by Representative Seaton, Mr. Gatewood
clarified that those in the administrative portion work the
37.5-hour workweek, while those who work hands-on with the kids
work 40-hour weeks.
Number 1759
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how the job performed by the youth
counselors compares with working at the Alaska Psychiatric
Institute (API).
MR. GATEWOOD answered that he doesn't know, but said a number of
kids in the youth correctional facilities have to be transferred
to API for various reasons. Reiterating that the juvenile
justice system sees a number of kids who suffer from mental
illnesses, he said, "Generally, we try to deal with them in the
facilities, just through caring and concern and humane
treatment. But sometimes their illnesses are just too great for
us to deal with and we do have to transfer them to API for a
brief respite/evaluation."
Number 1815
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN recalled from being a [police officer] that
juveniles were often far more dangerous than the same-sized
adult.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked the committee to consider, as a policy,
whether [youth correctional officers] should be included in the
same category as fire fighters, probation officers, police
officers, and adult correctional officers. He noted that there
may be a fiscal issue to consider later. [HB 183 was held
over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:03 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|