Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/17/1998 09:25 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE 17 April, 1998 9:25 a.m. TAPES SFC 98 # 125, Side A (000-593) Side B (593-197) CALL TO ORDER Senator Bert Sharp, Co-Chair, convened the meeting at approximately 9:25 a.m. PRESENT In addition to Co-Chair Sharp, Senators Torgerson, Adams, Parnell and Phillips were present when the meeting was convened. Senator Donley arrived shortly thereafter. Also Attending: Senator LYDA GREEN; Senator GEORGIANNA LINCOLN; Senator JERRY MACKIE; Representative NORM ROKEBERG; Representative GENE KUBINA; ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division; DUGAN PETTY, Director, Division of General Services, Department of Administration; KIM METCALF-HELMAR, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Community and Regional Affairs; LYNDA ZAUGG, Director, Division of Community Corrections, Department of Corrections; BETSEY ROBSON, Assistant Director, Division of Institutions, DOC; LARRY STREUBER, Facilities/Planning Chief, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Health and Social Services; DON DAPCEVICH, Executive Director, Governor's Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, DHSS; CATHERINE READON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Revenue; BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director, Division of Income and Excise Audit, DOR; SUSAN BURKE, Attorney, Law Firm of Gross and Burke; CARIN ROBINSON; MIKE GREANY, Director, Division of Legislative Finance and aides to committee members and other members of the Legislature. via Teleconference: From Anchorage, JANE ANGVIK, Director, Division of Lands, Department of Natural Resources. SUMMARY INFORMATION HOUSE BILL NO. 472 "An Act relating to apportionment of business income." Co-Chair Sharp noted that the committee held a hearing on this bill the day before. It had been set aside because of questions members wished to have addressed. Representative Rokeberg was invited to join the committee and comment: "Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. This committee has already reviewed the substance of this legislation in SB 345. Yesterday, I hope you have available on your desk, a list of supporters for HB 472. I've listed them in a list rather than provide the actual backup. You have additional backup in your folder. I'd ask that any additional information on [SB] 345 be adopted by reference into the bill package for this bill." "Also you have, Mr. Chairman - I've distributed something I wanted to make part of the permanent record - under a cover letter from COMICO Alaska from the producer's council, a list of the foreign flag vessels shipping mined ore out of the State Of Alaska during the years 1996 and 97, including the Skagway terminal, which is a $25 million investment financed by AIDEA bonds. It's also my understanding, Mr. Chairman that there is no US flag high-seas ore carriers in the United States. I wanted to introduce that as part of the record." "Additionally, Mr. Chairman, you should have distributed to the committee, a letter addressed to myself from the law firm of Gross and Burke of April 7, 1998, which speaks to the issues relating to the retroactivity provision, the constitution issue and severability. I'd like that as part of the record Mr. Chairman." "Also I notice that you do have a letter to Senator Donley from the Department of Revenue regarding some questions the committee raised in the last hearing on this bill." "With that, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that Ms. Burke is in the audience and available for any questions you may - the committee may have as to any legal aspects relating to the bill. And with that I'd be available for any questions." Senator Parnell offered Amendment #1 and moved for its adoption. He explained that it addressed the retroactivity question that came up at the earlier meeting. He believed the bill as it currently stood, sufficiently established the public purpose for the retroactivity. However, this amendment would make it clear that if the court made a final determination that retroactive application, under Section 2, was invalid, that the act would apply to tax years ending on, or after the effective date of the act. He felt the amendment would give a clear direction as to what was intended. Without objection, Amendment #1 was adopted. Senator Adams expressed approval of the change made with Amendment #1. But, he still disagreed with the law summary of Gross and Burke. He stated his feelings that the bill without the amendment was unconstitutional. He spoke of how the bill was supposed to help cruise lines and shared that cruise lines generated pre-tax revenues of $671 million last year. In the US, they only paid $6 million, which was less than one percent. He expressed his desire that the tax break not be given to these industries. He felt this bill would entice a lawsuit from the public. He hoped the amendment would clarify whether the bill was constitutional. He voiced his objection to the passage of the bill. Senator Parnell made a motion to move CS HB 472 (FIN) from committee. Co-Chair Sharp directed committee staff to review the fiscal note and determine if changes needed to be made as the result of the amendments. He noted there was objection to the motion and called for a vote. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1 and the bill was moved from committee. Senator Adams cast the nay vote. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 274(JUD) "An Act relating to fees for probation and parole." Co-Chair Sharp noted this bill had received a hearing at an earlier meeting and that a committee member wanted to work with the sponsor to make changes. At the prior hearing, Amendment #1 was adopted and Amendment #2 was not adopted. There was further discussion about where the committee was in relation to action on the bill. Senator Donley shared with the other members that he had been working with the sponsor to change the period of loss of the Permanent Fund Dividend for those individuals who committed a felony or multiple misdemeanors from one to two years. He continued by saying they also worked to add to the current list of appropriations of these revenues. Under the current bill, the PFD's that would no longer go to the criminal would be available to distribute to the Victim's Compensation Fund, the Council of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and the Department of Corrections incarceration and probation program. He was proposing to add to the list, the Office of Crime Victim's Rights, which would be created upon the passage of SB 219. He noted the committee had that bill in its possession and one reason that bill had not been moved from committee, was because of the accompanying $500,000 fiscal note. He suggested the withheld PFD funds could go to support the Office of Crime Victim's Rights. Amendment #4 would be the first step in accomplishing this. It would change the loss period for PFD from one to two years for individuals who had committed a felony or been convicted of two or more misdemeanor crimes against a person. Senator Adams objected for the purpose of asking a question. He asked what would happen in relation to this amendment if SB 219 failed to pass. Would other programs that were listed as receiving funds through this bill suffer as a result of the failure of SB 219, he wondered. Senator Donley replied that the other programs would actually benefit if the Office of Crime Victim's Rights were not established. They would receive a larger share of the funds. He admitted the department did not know how much revenue would be generated by this program, but last year 3,029 criminals were denied a PFD due to incarceration. He used that figure to calculate an amount of $4 million that would be available for these programs. Senator Donley moved to adopt Amendment #4. Senator Adams objected, asking for further explanation of Section 8. Senator Donley described how currently released felons and multiple misdemeanants waited one calendar year to begin receiving PFD's. This amendment would say they had to wait two years before receiving their dividend again, he explained. Senator Adams voiced his opposition of the amendment. His reason was that he felt this would place a burden on the families of convicts who depended on the dividends to help cover living expenses. Co-Chair Sharp requested a roll call. Amendment #4 was adopted by a vote of 6 - 1, with Senator Adams casting the opposing vote. Senator Donley offered a motion to adopt Amendment #3 and spoke to the amendment. He said, with the funding source established by the previous amendment, this would add the Office of Crime Victim's Rights to the list of recipients of the revenues. He noted it had a contingent effective date based on the passage of SB 219. Senator Parnell asked for clarification that the intent was not to appropriate all the earned revenue into the one program, but to divide it among the four listed above. Senator Donley affirmed, pointing out that the existing statutes did not specify a percentage breakdown of distribution. Senator Adams asked if each program would receive 25 percent of the funds, or would they be funded according to a priority structure. Senator Donley answered that neither would apply. Funding would be determined strictly by a budgetary process, starting with the Governor's proposal and going through the Legislature system just as other budget items did. He noted that more funds currently were spent on the Council of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault program than were spent on the Victim's Compensation Fund. Senator Adams had another question relating to Section 11. He hoped that the companion bill, SB 219 would accompany this bill as it traveled through the remaining committees. He felt this would make both bills more understandable in their relation to each other. Senator Donley advised that SB 219 was in the Senate Finance Committee and Senator Adams suggested scheduling a hearing so it could be moved from committee soon. There was no objection to Amendment #3 and Co-Chair Sharp ordered it adopted. There were no further amendments and the committee began hearing public testimony. Co-Chair Sharp first called upon LINDA ZAUGG, Director of Community Corrections, DOC, who came to the table and spoke as follows: "What I wanted to do today was speak about SB 274, which is essentially proposes placing a $3.30 per day fee on offenders that are on probation and parole." "I would like to provide just a little bit of history on the subject. In 1986 the Legislature proposed and passed a probation fee. The DOC at that time supported this legislation and placed in regulations, a requirement for $45 per month fee. It became clear soon after that that fee was much more difficult to collect than originally anticipated. And it really did require a considerable amount of probation officer time doing accounting work and trying to enforce the collection of that fee. The DOC at that time was able to collect less than ten percent of the anticipated fee and ended up putting some probation officers on community work service to pay the fee in liew of payment. This in fact turned out to be a paperwork nightmare and was unsuccessful." "In rural Alaska, probationers who live the subsistence lifestyle, were unable to pay and there was little in the way of community work service to replace the fee. In urban communities, most probationers did not - who did not have work could not afford to pay the fee or outright refused to pay the fee. While AS 12.55.051 allowed the defendants to be incarcerated one day for each $50 owed in fee or fine, very few offenders were incarcerated. This issue quickly became a fee with no consequences. While some did pay, over 90 percent did not. The DOC was still obligated to still try to collect that money and spent a considerable amount of time and resources in that effort to collect." "During the 16th Legislature, Senator Adams proposed a bill to repeal the fee because many of the probationers in rural Alaska lived a subsistence lifestyle and it was extremely difficult to collect. And collection in other parts of the state just simply did not go well. Senator Adam's bill, which was SB 133 passed the Senate by a vote of 17 to zero and passed the House by a vote of 37 to zero. Five members of this committee voted to repeal that fee." "House bill - the current HB or SB 274 differs from the previous fee in that it is over twice the amount of the previous fee, which was $45 a month. And requires the DOC to contract out the collection and administration of the fee. The current national average of 23 states where the collection fee exists, is $22.60 a month. The highest fee is $40 a month with the lowest fee being $10 a month." "In addition, Section 7 of this legislation requires that the Board of Parole revoke probation for parolees that refuse to pay the fee. This will be the first statute that mandates revocation of parole anywhere in the Alaska law. The bill will have no choice but - the board will have no choice but to revoke parole and put the parolees back in severely overcrowded system. It will cost more per day than the monthly fee." "SB 274 goes onto require the probationers and probationees to assign their permanent fund check to the state and requires the DOC to attach the PFD if they become inerrors. However, the state would not get any of this money until prior requirements are satisfied such as child support, restitution, court-ordered fees, etc. The fees are number eight in line for the attachment of the PFD check. DOC does not believe that many, if any of these PFD's will be left by the time we get to number eight under AS 43.23.065 fee. One example given for this bill is that of the State of Texas, which collects $90 million a year from their probation/parolee fees. And that in fact is correct. The State of Texas has made the collection of fees a priority. But this is a priority over things such as child support and restitution. The DOC does not believe that children and/or victims should be paid after probation/parole fees are satisfied." "With regard to the collection of fees, we realize that the sponsor has required that this be contracted out. The DOC understands and supports this concept. We contacted the Associated Credit Agency, which is a collection agency here in Juneau and were told that they did not do this kind of work. They're in the business of collecting bad debts only and normally take a percentage of the money recovered. It is unclear if an accounting firm or a person will take on this task keeping in mind that it is probably the most difficult group of people to collect money from. If they do, it will still require considerable time on the part of the probation officers who will have to work closely with the contractors to provide information on the probation/parolees." "Finally, the DOC believes that the concept of this bill is a good idea but the previous track record does not support the reinstatement of this fee. It is easy to say that if everyone pays their fee, the bill will bring in approximately $5 million. Past performance indicates that this will not be the case and the DOC believes that there are no indications that this will change." "One of the things brought up at one of the last hearings was the business of roughly 20,000 misdemeanants out there that could pay part of this fee as well. I just - for the committee's information - they're actually - during calendar year '97 there were 9,175 misdemeanant arrests - people arrested for misdemeanants for a total of 17,574. So the fee, if any would actually be collected on those 9,000 folks." "Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue. If you have any questions I'd be glad to try to answer them." Senator Adams asked if the misdemeanants were under the supervision of the probation/parole segment. Ms. Zaugg told him the probation/parole offices would not be a part of the collection efforts. Co-Chair Sharp next called upon JENNIFER BELL of Natives for Sobriety to testify. Her testimony was as follows: "[I have] kind of mixed feelings about SB 274. That some of the concerns are as what was stated before. You know there's a high rate of unemployment already in rural communities. And then you - we also have individuals on probation/parole who are classified as sex offenders and are already paying for treatment sometimes at the rate of $400, $500 a month. And I could see some real difficulty for them to pay this and then there would be - you know I could just see a lot of violations you know for not being able to pay this fee." "I'm also concerned that you know you have individuals who are on public assistance you know like $100 a month is going to go towards paying probation/parole fees because that's the only money that they do have. And it seems like this amount equals to the amount of the permanent fund per year. And with - and I just in 1996 alone there was like 3,600 plus revocations where you know there - they were revoked for whatever reason you know. Be very difficult for them to be eligible for permanent fund when they're revoked and back in jail. And I just see there's be great difficulty in collecting this." "I know there has been some discussion about at some point having individuals return back to their home and in rural areas that you know where there don't have probation officers. You know they only have BPSO's and who's going to collect this, who's going to monitor this. You know this would be a real deterrent to having them go back home like its just something else that could be violated for very easily. So those are the concerns." "You know regarding getting a job. I think I stated before I was in Lemon Creek for fourteen months. It took me an equal amount of time to get a job right here in Juneau and very difficult. And I'm sure a lot of other probation - those on probation and parole have the same difficulty depending on whatever the crime is. It's just difficult time. And it is a burden on the family. I know it's something that we need to be responsible for, but it's also something else that you know my mind it's like I have to have a job or I will be in violation you know for not being able to pay." "Now on the other side it looks like this bill may pass, I don't know. It and there have been many, many reports again I keep bringing this up you know that if a good portion of this money could go towards addressing those concerns that have already been stated you know. There's a list of you know places where this money is going to go, whether its to - for the victims or for domestic violence - whatever if some of that money could go back in corrections to help correct some of the concerns that are there in terms of culturally relevant programs. I think this would be a great thing. If it could be collected you know." "But I just see it's going to be real difficulty in collecting this money. And you know - I know there are high percentage of Natives out there you know from rural areas. And I just see this as something that's going to be very hard for them." This concluded public testimony on the bill. Senator Donley pointed out that the committee had the amended bill before it. Senator Adams interrupted saying that he was drafting another amendment that he wished to offer. Senator Phillips requested a short recess while the amendment was being distributed. The committee took a five-minute AT EASE starting at approximately 10:00 a.m. Senator Adams apologized for the delay then moved for adoption of Amendment #5. Senator Donley objected and Senator Adams spoke to the motion. He said this would be the first time in statute that a parolee would be held responsible for the payment of a parole fee with the penalty for not paying resulting in reimprisonment. He believed the discretion should be left up the Parole Board. His amendment would change the word, "shall" to "may". The reason he did that, he explained was because economic conditions changed within different areas of Alaska. He felt the Parole Board should take that into consideration when determining punishment. He also noted the overcrowding in the prison system and suggested the reimprisonment option could be delayed until the overcrowding had been eased. Senator Phillips wondered how often the parole board might use this as an escape hatch for not returning offenders to prison. He asked if there was a representative of the parole board present at the meeting. Ms. Zaugg returned to the table. Senator Phillips addressed his question to her asking if the board would manipulate this law and see it as an excuse for not remanding parolees. Ms. Zaugg responded that the way the bill was currently drafted, the parole board had no discretion. Senator Phillips asked if the parole board followed a standard or whether they passed judgement on a case by case basis. Ms. Zaugg replied that it was pretty much case by case. Senator Phillips felt that was a problem. Ms. Zaugg offered ANN CARPENETI from the Department of Law who was present and could answer any legal questions. Senator Phillips voiced his concern that the parole board would not follow the intent of the Legislature in returning to prison; those parolees who failed to pay their fee. He felt criteria should be set, rather than the parole board operating on a case by case manner. Ms. Carpeneti did not feel she was in a position to speak to the standards followed by the parole board. In her opinion, using the word, "shall" restricted the board from making a decision when the failure to pay was a mistake, or the person didn't get paid that month or other situations. She spoke to the possible inappropriateness of returning parolees to prison in some circumstances. She also mentioned the overcrowded conditions in the prisons. As Co-Chair Sharp read the language, there was some latitude in the parole board's discretion. He read that portion, "The board shall revoke the parole of the parolee who defaults with payment of the parole fee imposed under...unless the parolee shows by a preponderance of evidence that the parolee was unable to pay despite having made continuing good faith efforts to pay the fee. If the board finds that the parolee was unable to pay despite having made good faith efforts the parole may not be revoked solely because of the inability to pay." That gave the board discretion, he felt. Senator Phillips then wondered why the amendment was necessary. Ms. Carpeneti advised that it made more sense form a drafting standpoint to use the word "may" when giving the discretion under the circumstances. Senator Donley requested the bill sponsor's opinion on the issue. CRAIG JOHNSON, staff to Senator Jerry Ward commented as follows: "Specifically to the amendment, I think that that would in essence take the teeth out of the bill. When you - it may do it, it may not. I think part of the reason that the last time this was tried and there was only an eight percent collection rate was a result of two things. One, there was no repercussions per say, and two, there was really no incentive for the department to collect this money. Now there is incentive and there are repercussions. The incentive is it's a private collection agency so the department really doesn't have to deal with it. And two on the shell I think it's going to drive the inmate knowing that there is very little - their only recourse to not paying is to prove that they fall under the inability to pay." Co-Chair Sharp re-read the sentence in the bill which said, "If the board finds that the parolee was unable to pay despite having made continuing good faith efforts, the parole may not be revoked solely because of the inability to pay." To him, that was allowing the parole board some discretion. Mr. Johnson agreed and added that if the board determined the parolee was able to pay, then they had no option but to revoke the parole. There was no further discussion on the amendment and Co- Chair Sharp requested a roll call. Amendment #5 failed by a vote of 1-5-1. Senator Adams cast the nay vote and Senator Torgerson was absent. Senator Pearce offered a motion to move from committee, CS SB 274 (FIN) with a new fiscal note to be provided by the department. Senator Adams objected. Senator Adams spoke to his objection stating his belief that the legislation was a waste of time. Even if the bill passed, he didn't believe it would work in the rural areas he represented. He warned that many of his constituents did not have the money to pay the fee. He reemphasized the rural economy and unemployment rate. He felt the change in withholding PFD's for two years would place a burden on the families of these individuals. Co-Chair Sharp requested a roll call. The bill was moved from committee by a vote of 5-1-1. Senator Adams cast the nay vote and Senator Torgerson was absent. SENATE BILL NO. 246 "An Act amending the definition of correctional facility to include a therapeutic treatment center; providing for the conveyance of the Harborview Developmental Center and appurtenant land to the City of Valdez for the purpose of conversion and lease of a part of the center for a therapeutic treatment center for the Department of Corrections; providing that such a land conveyance counts toward the general grant land entitlement of the City of Valdez; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chair Sharp announced that although this was the first official hearing on this bill, the committee heard a presentation from Dr. Gary Field of the Oregon Department of Corrections earlier relating to the establishment of the rehabilitation center. He invited BETSY ROBSON, Assistant Director in the Department of Corrections in charge of programs, to speak to the bill. Her testimony was as follows: "With the chair's permission, I'd like to hand out some documents that relate to the cost of care per day, and also the effectiveness of treatment." Co-Chair Sharp noted that information was probably already in each member's file, but instructed her to pass out her information just in case there were any differences. He urged her to continue with her presentation. "This bill would allow the DOC to establish the Valdez Therapeutic Community. For a long time, the DOC has recognized the need for intensive alcohol treatment and programs to address those offenders who are seriously addicted." "It is estimated that a large number, approximately 80 percent of the individuals involved in crime in our custody have problems with substance abuse. Currently the DOC provides a substance abuse education program, a pretreatment program and an outpatient model. We do not have available the intensive treatment to deal with these serious offenders." "If we were to open the Valdez facility, we would be looking at housing 60 medium/minimum inmates from across the state. These individuals would require - have been screened and known to require intensive treatment and would not otherwise be eligible for any form of early release unless they receive this type of treatment. The program will feature a nine to twelve month program of intensive treatment. It will have a strong after-care component and planning for after-care will begin when the inmate enters the program." "We feel that this program can have a significant impact on this population in terms of reduction of recidivism. Previously national expert, Gary Field from the Staying Out program in Oregon did testify before this committee as to the anticipated impact of this program. And in fact in the handout that we distributed, there is a pamphlet that shows research summary on recidivism rate." "The second section of this bill provides for the transfer of the Harborview Developmental Center and the adjoining property to the City of Valdez. The DOC, Department of Health and Social Services and the City of Valdez have been working closely with the Department of Admin. on developing an interim agreement to allow us to make renovations to the building and to continue forward with those renovations." Side B Tape 125, 10:20 a.m. "...In addition, the DOA has assisted with a surplussing process. They have canvassed other state departments and agencies and determined that there is no other agency with an interest in the building. Dugan Petty is here today on behalf of the DOA and would be available to answer any questions that individuals may have." "Also, I would like the permission of the chair to ask Larry Streuber from DHSS to come up and address the issue of what will happen if the building is not transferred to the City of Valdez." Co-Chair Sharp invited LARRY STREUBER, the Facilities/Planning Chief for the DHSS to speak to the committee. After introducing himself, Mr. Streuber's comments were as follows: "Harborview Development Center for many years was the institutional facility for the developmentally disabled population. Three years ago, the decision was made to close Harborview and the remaining 44 residents were transferred to community services. The last residents were out November 15th and the last program staff were out of Harborview December 30th." "Harborview is a valuable asset. It's valued - its replacement value is valued at over $40 million. To protect that asset - the State's asset, the building - the DHSS implemented an asset protection plan, a fancy name for mothballing. Basically what we did is divide the mechanical electrical operations of the building into logical units and reduced the energy necessary to keep the building functional but operating at a minimum capacity. And we retained one maintenance mechanic on staff. So out of the hundred or so people that were at Harborview as staff a few years ago, we still have one maintenance mechanic. However the Valdez Community Hospital is fully operational and does occupy 17 percent of the facility." "The point that we want to make today is that if the facility isn't transferred to Valdez it remains a state responsibility. The state will have the responsibility to protect the building to keep an asset protection." "In FY99, if the State has to continue asset protection for that building, we estimate that that cost will be about $265,000 and we don't have any money in our FY99 budget to do that." Co-Chair Sharp asked what would be the cost to demolish the building. Mr. Streuber did not know, but had heard the cost to demolish API would be $15 million. He estimated the cost to demolish Harborview would be less because it was a smaller building. Senator Phillips wanted to know if the City of Valdez had any other plans for the facility besides using it for the alcohol treatment program. Ms. Robson was unaware of any other plans. However, she did point out that DOC intended to occupy only a portion of the building, which they would lease from the city. Other portions of the building would be used by other agencies. Senator Adams asked for clarification on the daily operating rate. He noted a letter from Senator Ward stating the cost per bed was $124.39. DOC quoted the cost as $95.87. He wanted to know why the discrepancy existed. Ms. Robson was unsure and requested the committee allow Division of Administration Deputy Director Joe Reeves from DOC speak to the cost per day matter. Senator Pearce directed the committee's attention to the back page of one of the handouts the treatment costs were broken out and compared to incarceration costs. Senator Adams was satisfied with that information to answer his concerns. Senator Phillips wanted to know if there was an option to sell the building to the private sector. He compared that to the cost to the state to maintain the building or have it demolished. Ms. Robson asked DUGAN PETTY, General Services Director for the DOA be allowed to comment. Mr. Petty spoke to that issue as follows: "We've not taken this to the point where we have put it out for public dissemination. The City of Valdez has expressed an interest in the facility and if the decision were made not to move forward with the City of Valdez. Although, I would wonder if it wouldn't become something like the Whittier building - never had a market. We have not done that. We could do it should we not do it with the city. We've been..." Senator Phillips interrupted asking for other examples where the State surplussed buildings. Mr. Petty replied they had excessed a number of smaller buildings for off-site removal. The State had done a limited amount of larger buildings. He qualified that this was a new state and this was one of the first large buildings that had been looked at for decommission. They did not have much of a track record, he admitted, but they did believe that to the extent the transfer could benefit the community, the transaction made sense. By transferring to the city, it would not preclude the city from entering into an agreement with the private sector for use of the building, he added. However, the city needed part of the building for the community hospital. He believed the hospital was vital to the community. Senator Pearce wanted to know what the DOC was going to do with regard to the Cleary Order to relieve prison overcrowding if inmates could not be transferred to this facility. Ms. Robson responded part of the department's plan to reduce prison population was to send inmates to the alcohol treatment facility. If the program were not approved by the Legislature, they would have to look at other alternatives including violating the court ordered population cap or shipping more inmates to Arizona. The cost to house these inmates out-of-state would be approximately $106 per day, she estimated. Senator Pearce spoke of the plan the department submitted to the court to comply with the Cleary Order. She asked if it included placing inmates in the Harborview facility as part of the solution. Ms. Robson affirmed. Senator Pearce wanted to know if the inmates were not housed in state, what would be the average cost to house them out-of-state. Ms. Robson repeated that the average amount would be $106 per day. Senator Pearce noted that while the outside beds were cheaper, the inmates wouldn't receive any treatment while being housed out of state. Ms. Robson said they would receive very limited treatment. It would be whatever treatment was available at the facility, but would not be enough to meet their needs. Senator Pearce observed that in order to comply with the court order, these inmates needed to be placed somewhere. In other words, these would not be new beds, and at some point the treatment program would have to be provided under the Cleary Order. Ms. Robson agreed that was a fair assessment of the situation. Co-Chair Sharp didn't recall Harborview being part of the prison relief package the committee put together. Senator Pearce said while it was not part of the short-term/long- term plan to house inmates in tents and ship others out of state, the Harborview facility was approved by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee last year and was included in the supplemental budget package. She shared that one stipulation for the program's approval was that the cost per day of incarceration, less cost for treatment, had to be below the average cost per day system-wide. She explained that part of the budget plan for the department was an under $8 million increase, which did not include these 60 beds because funding for them was covered under a fiscal note. Whether the Legislature passed this bill or not, they would need to somehow fund the 60 beds to meet the court order, she warned. It was up to the Legislature whether they wanted to fund the 60 beds through the Harborview program or by some other means. Co-Chair Sharp noted the arrival of the bill sponsor, Representative GENE KUBINA, and invited him to join the committee. He also invited Senator GEORGIANNA LINCOLN to join the committee. Senator Kubina testified as follows: "Harborview Developmental Center - DHSS has wanted for years to get out of the institution of Harborview. So, in doing so, they have kept the number down, not allowed more people to go in that facility, making the cost per person extremely high, which in essence, forced the closure of that facility." "The City of - over the last two years, the Legislature first funded $250,000 to do a - to find out how to use - what way we could use Harborview. Basically, Harborview is a facility that's made to house people. Last year, the Legislature funded $400,000 and they put stipulations in that I think you are all aware of so I won't read them. But it says that we will do this program if they can do it where the cost per inmate day does not exceed statewide average during that day excluding treatment. And then they also - we also put in the budget that we would have these programs to monitor it so that we could actually show or prove whether we're saving money by doing it or not." "The City of Valdez has gone to a great length to try to bring the cost down, providing the facility, work with the department. They are in essence, in the lease back to the department, including heating, electricity and maintenance. There is no - they have taken all the risk on that building not being a good building and having to cost too much. All of that is in the cost. So this is what people in DHSS been saying for years where the building is expensive. We don't buy that we've never bought that. We just think they wanted to get out of having a quote an institution." "Mr. Chairman, we had a gentleman from Oregon here talk about the program. I won't go into that. I know you sat through it and everybody that has dealt with these programs tell you this program is great. Oregon not only had one that they started almost 20 years ago. They've added three more because this program works so well in keeping people out of prison." "Mr. Chairman, the City of Valdez has worked in good faith. They have a million dollars ready to put into the building to bring it - make the changes that corrections needs to use the facility for this proposal. Obviously, they don't want - they're not going to spend that money until we know that the proposal is there. We have followed the letter of the law. Even though the Governor vetoed this, the department has agreed to follow it, the City of Valdez has done everything they can to come in with those stipulations and we would like to go forward with the program." "I think - I'm convinced that several years down the line, we're all going to be happy that it happened because the program is going to be successful. We're going to be doing something to keep people out rather than putting them back." He concluded by offering to answer any questions. Co-Chair Sharp invited Senator Lincoln to speak. She testified as follows: "I would just add to that that in looking at the 60 bed minimum and medium custody inmates that would be there, that frees up 60 more beds that we so desperately need within the state. And I think when you look at the cost effectiveness as was mentioned earlier, the average cost of being $106 compared to the $95.87 - I think that's through the department and the community that they have worked very closely together to come under that figure. And have a very cost effective program here, one that's needed and also that I think that the planning process that both the City of Valdez, and the department and the administration in all working together for this planning process." "It wasn't anything that was just put together real rapidly and without any thought given to the benefits to the State Of Alaska. So I think it really is - if you look at it - overall it's cost effective and we certainly do have the need there." Co-Chair Sharp next called upon DON DAPCEVICH, the Executive Director for the Governor's Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. After introducing himself, Mr. Dapcevich gave the following presentation: "My board has instructed me to come and speak before you in support of this legislation." "All Alaskan's had the opportunity about ten days ago to watch a very impressive series. And I hope some of you saw that series titled 'Moyers on Addiction'. It was run nationally on public television all across the State Of Alaska. The last hour of that program was devoted to the prison system's response to treatment and it focused on the State of Arizona. And they have recently come to realization that the most effective, the most fiscally responsible way to deal with the overcrowding in their prisons is to treat the addictions of their prisoners. And I think this is the opportunity that you have to respond to that in Alaska." "I had the good fortune several years ago to act as a consultant to the State of Texas when they began their foray into treatment communities for their prison populations. And they have proven as you can see in the material provided by the DOC to you, been quite successful in their ability to treat prisoners. It's a relatively small investment with a control infrastructure cost to the state that can be measured. It's quantifiable. It's qualafiable." "You have an opportunity to use the performance measures that you've established the outcome based funding criteria that you're establishing to measure the effectiveness of this treatment program. And if it doesn't work over a very short period of time, beginning in the second year, you'll know if it hasn't worked and you can either continue to fund it based on it's effectiveness in efficacy in treating this population, or you can defund it." "But here's an opportunity where the community is willing to accept this facility. And that's pretty strange in this day and age for a community to be willing to not only accept this facility in their community, but to participate with you in the cost of operating the facility. So it appears to be from our perspective, a win, win; win situation for the state. A very small investment, a promised return on that investment over a very short period of time that will actually save you dollars in the long run. So we would encourage you to fund this facility and get it on the road." Representative Kubina announced that he needed to leave the meeting to satisfy a call placed on all House of Representative members. He wanted the members to that know his leaving did not imply apathy for the work the committee was doing, but that he had no other choice but to go to the House chambers. Co-Chair Sharp noted the need and thanked the representative for the explanation. Co-Chair Sharp commented on conflicting testimony where the department said Arizona prisoners received limited treatment and Mr. Dapcevich said they had an exemplary program. Senator Adams asked if the Co-Chair was ready for a motion to move the bill from committee. Co-Chair Sharp said he was waiting for more comments. There were no others signed up to testify. He ordered the bill held in committee. SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 17(RES) "An Act establishing the Department of Natural Resources as the platting authority in certain areas of the state; relating to subdivisions and dedications; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chair Sharp noted that Representative Jeannette James was the sponsor of the bill but since the House members were under the call order, she was unable to attend this portion of the meeting. He asked if any members of her staff were present and could speak on her behalf. There was no one from her office present. Senator Adams pointed out there had been a similar bill in the Legislature during a different session. He shared that the only reason it died was because of the adjournment frenzy that particular year. He didn't think the Department of Natural Resources had any problem with the legislation. He felt the fiscal note adequately reflected the funding associated with the platting authority. He didn't know of any opposition to this bill, which would establish DNR as the platting authority and amend the definition of subdivision. He expressed a desire to see the bill moved out of committee. Co-Chair Sharp noted that he and Senator Torgerson had heard the bill in the Resources Committee and were both comfortable with it also. Just for the record, he wanted to hear comments from JANE ANGVIK, the Director of the Division of Lands. Via teleconference from Anchorage, she briefly stated that the division supported HB 17. Senator Torgerson had one question. He wanted to know if a title search would be required before any of the properties could be plotted. Ms. Angvik responded it was not required. She continued saying that a title search was necessary in order to buy or sell land, but particularly in an unorganized borough, it was currently possible to record any document. What this legislation would do, she explained, was allow a review of the survey to determine its accuracy. Senator Torgerson indicated his consideration of drafting an amendment to require a title search and that the title search must be kept by the department for future reference for incorporation and taxation in rural Alaska if that ever came to fruition. He felt that would fit into the intent of this legislation. Senator Adams requested a new fiscal note from the department if the title searches were to be required. He felt the amount would be substantial and although he didn't mind the increase, thought it needed to be appropriated. Ms. Angvik asked for clarification that Senator Torgerson intended the title searches be done on private land. Senator Torgerson affirmed. Ms. Angvik commented that would be unusual. In answering the senator's question why, she said it was because the department only did title searches for state land. Senator Torgerson commented that before a property tax notice could be issued on private land, a title search must be done. He assumed a title company would be hired to do the search. His intention was that a plat could not be recorded without having first performed a title search. Co-Chair Sharp asked if Senator Torgerson meant for the title search costs to be paid by the property owner or individual requesting the plat as opposed to DNR. Senator Torgerson affirmed. Ms. Angvik assured the committee that the department had no objection to the requirement of a title report as well as a survey. Co-Chair Sharp ordered the bill held in committee until the next day's scheduled meeting to allow Senator Torgerson to draft the amendment. SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 334(STA) "An Act relating to waiver of tuition and fees for certain family members of a peace officer or a fire fighter killed in the line of duty; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chair Sharp noted the time was short, but he wanted to have a hearing on this bill. The committee took a short recess to summon the sponsor's staff member to speak to the bill. BRUCE CAMPBELL, staff to Representative Pete Kelly, was invited to come to the table. He testified to the bill as follows: "I am pleased to bring HB 334 before you. This is a bill that you may recall that we had a tragedy this last winter in which a police officer gave his life in Fairbanks. And when we began to research the issue, we discovered that police officers were not included in the existing tuition waver program that we offer for military. So this bill offers that benefit to peace officers and to fire departments." "There is a technical amendment requested by the drafters. And they have discovered a technical defect that, as we adjusted the process, we did in fact need to put 'a member of the armed services' in the title of the bill. So I have a short amendment for you that achieves that." Senator Phillips interrupted asking if that would require a resolution. Mr. Campbell replied that it did not, that the drafters said it was a technical defect, which could be corrected under Uniform Rule 41-B. Co-Chair Sharp clarified that existing law already allowed for widows and children of members of the armed services who died in the line of duty to receive the waiver. Mr. Campbell affirmed. Co-Chair Sharp asked if there were any other amendment the sponsor wished to offer. Mr. Campbell said no, just the one already mentioned. Co-Chair Sharp noted that several committee members were absent and there was not enough votes to take action on the bill, so he set the bill aside until a later meeting. ADJOURNMENT Co-Chair Sharp adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:55 a.m. SFC-98 (21) 4/17/98 am
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|