Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/12/2010 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB305 | |
| SB110 | |
| SB257 | |
| SB246 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 305 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 246 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 12, 2010
9:14 a.m.
9:14:44 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:14 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice-Chair
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Dennis Egan
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Joe Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Roger Marks, Legislative Budget and Audit Legislative
Consultant, Logsdon & Associates; Pat Galvin, Commissioner,
Department of Revenue; Megan Stanneland, Advocate, Juneau
Youth Court; Doug Wooliver, Administrative Attorney for the
Court System; Senator Joe Paskvan; Senator Lesil McGuire;
Senator Bill Wielechowski; Representative John Coghill;
Senator Hollis French
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Kerri Fox, Bethel Youth Court; Lisa Albert-Konecky, Mat-Su
Youth Court, Wasilla
SUMMARY
SB 305 SEPARATE OIL & GAS PRODUCTION TAX
SB 305 was heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
SB 110 PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
CSSB 110 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with two new zero
fiscal notes by the Department of Public Safety,
and a new fiscal note by the Department of Law.
SB 246 INCREASING NUMBER OF SUPERIOR CT JUDGES
SB 246 was heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
SB 257 YOUTH COURTS AND CRIMINAL FINES
SB 257 was heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
9:14:58 AM
SENATE BILL NO. 305
"An Act relating to the tax on oil and gas production;
and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Stedman began with the second hearing of SB 305.
He noted the first hearing was on March 9. Another new CS,
which will tighten up the title, will be forthcoming on
Wednesday. Some issues in the CS will need further
attention. One of the purposes of the hearing is to inform
the public how the legislature works with the
administration and the industry to solve those issues.
9:17:53 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT the work draft for SB 305,
labeled 26-LS1577\E, Bullock, 3/10/10.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
9:18:35 AM
ROGER MARKS, LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT LEGISLATIVE
CONSULTANT, LOGSDON & ASSOCIATES, explained the two changes
in version E of the bill. The title of the bill has been
modified to reduce the scope of the bill. There was some
concern that the original title was too broad. It now
reads, "An Act relating to that part of the tax on oil and
gas production that increases the rate of tax as the
production tax value increases above $30 and limiting the
effect of that rate increase to the production of oil; and
providing for an effective date." He said there were plans
to tighten the title even more.
Mr. Marks addressed the second change in the bill. On page
9, Section 8, the applicability of the bill states that
"Sections 1 - 7 of this Act are applicable on and after the
first day of the calendar month immediately following the
effective date of the Act." He clarified that under current
statute and under the bill as currently written, the
taxpayers calculate installment payments every month. He
opined that if the taxpayers have to calculate two
different progressivity factors in the same month, it would
make the tax calculation burdensome for the department and
for the taxpayers.
9:20:40 AM
Co-Chair Stedman REMOVED his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, version E was adopted.
PAT GALVIN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, introduced
himself.
Co-Chair Stedman commented that the process has moved
rapidly. He hoped to have the particular technical changes
included in the next CS.
Commissioner Galvin referred to a handout entitled,
"Comments on SB 305" (copy on file). He noted that he would
focus on three main topics - slide 2 - revenue projections
under SB 305 and under the status quo; cost allocation; and
technical issues regarding SB 305. He began with revenue
projections under SB 305 - slide 3. It was decided to use
the single year income statement model assumptions from a
previous Department of Revenue (DOR) presentation. The
question in mind is how SB 305 compares to the status quo
at different oil-to-gas price parities. He highlighted
income statement model assumptions - slide 4 - and pointed
out that any of them could change in the future. He
cautioned to keep in mind sensitivities as they relate to
the relative production between oil and gas.
9:24:52 AM
Commissioner Galvin spoke of a scenario at high parity, SB
305 > status quo - slide 5. This is a situation where there
is $120/bbl oil and $8/MMBtu gas (15:1 parity). The result,
under the status quo, is combined oil and gas revenue to
the state of $5.5 billion.
Co-Chair Stedman requested a general explanation of the
scenario. Commissioner Galvin returned to slide 4 to
explain the assumptions. He explained that the production
levels are intended to approximate what is expected at the
beginning of the flow of the gas pipeline. The current oil
production forecast has production approaching 500,000
barrels per day in 2020. The initial throughput on the gas
pipeline is currently estimated to be 4.5 Bcf a day. The
relative volumes of oil and gas are significant drivers to
the analysis, as well as the price. He detailed the
difference in production under oil and gas. He stated that
the presentation is in order to examine the gas and oil
production tax under AGIA as it currently stands and under
SB 305, which stands to change the way the tax is figured.
Commissioner Galvin continued to explain how the
calculations for net oil and gas tax would work. He defined
how it would work under the current system and under SB
305. The status quo has a revenue factor of 5.5; under SB
305 it would be 7.5
9:30:08 AM
Commissioner Galvin turned to slide 6 to explain the
scenario at lower parity under SB 305 and under the status
quo. The graph shows the primary difference is that the
separate tax on gas brings in less because of lack of
progressivity.
Commissioner Galvin made observations about slide 7. SB 305
can lead to higher or lower state revenue compared to the
status quo tax system, depending on oil price and gas
parity. SB 305 provides for a lower state share compared to
the status quo when profits are high and gas prices are
relatively high (no gas progressivity). SB 305 imposes a
higher tax burden compared to the status quo when gas
prices are relatively low.
9:33:31 AM
Commissioner Galvin showed the oil/gas price parity guess
depicted on slide 8. The graph projects where price parity
has been from 2008 to 2010. The question is where it will
be in 2020 - 2045. He did not wish to speculate.
9:35:03 AM
Commissioner Galvin turned to cost allocation issues -
slide 10. This is a significant issue as it relates to
having separate oil and gas taxes whose individual values
will affect their respective tax rates. As costs move from
a profitable side to a less profitable side, the result is
that more revenue is generated by the tax system.
Commissioner Galvin explained that the current status quo
does not address how to determine how the costs would be
allocated between oil and gas, which could result in
uncertainty, disputes, and delays. Cost allocation should
be specified in the statute and is a very important policy
decision.
Commissioner Galvin proposed different cost allocation
options - slide 11. He first discussed the detailed item by
item attribution methods, followed by the formula or rule-
based attribution methods. He stressed that attribution
differences have and could lead to a number of disputes
among working interest owners in terms of investment
decisions.
9:41:07 AM
Senator Huggins assumed that in places outside of Alaska,
oil and gas taxes are separate and producers with more
experience than Alaska have solved similar problems.
Commissioner Galvin agreed and thought it was worth
recruiting outside opinions on these matters.
Co-Chair Stedman pointed out that this is an early stage of
this particular legislation.
9:38:40 AM
Commissioner showed on slide 12 how the item by item
attribution methods work. Many places have moved away from
a detailed item by item attribution method because of the
issues it creates, and have moved toward a formula or rule-
based method.
9:42:22 AM
Commissioner Galvin continued with slide 13 - formula or
rule-based methods. A consequence of not accurately
reflecting the true purpose of the cost is that it could
lead to disputes. He provided examples of ways to attribute
costs: proportion of production, proportion of sales,
proportion of reserves, rule of dominant use - either gas
or oil, deemed oil unless item is 100 percent gas relate,
and a combination of any of the above.
9:45:45 AM
Commissioner Galvin explained the impact of cost allocation
choices - slide 14. The current bill requires a cost
allocation between oil and gas, but does not describe the
allocation method or guiding principles. He compared three
cost allocation possibilities: costs allocated based on
relative BOE production, costs allocated based on relative
gross value at Point of Production (PoP), and assumed
"actual" cost split of 90/10 between oil and gas.
Co-Chair Stedman requested an explanation of how the
current cost allocation system works. Commissioner Galvin
clarified that the current system does not deal with cost
allocation. He cautioned, however, that there is one area
with cost allocation, provisions that hold Cook Inlet
harmless. The provision worked by determining what the tax
would be under the current production tax and requiring a
comparison with the ELF-derived tax. Whichever tax was
lower, would be paid. A way to split the current allocation
between oil and gas had to be found, so it was split on a
production volume basis.
9:50:26 AM
Commissioner Galvin showed cost allocation examples on
slide 15, which explain how the cost breakdown is derived
under the three potential scenarios.
9:55:14 AM
Commissioner Galvin turned to slide 16 - the impact of the
allocation method on SB 305 revenue. At $120/bbl oil and 15
to 1 parity there is $8.5 billion of revenue generated by
SB 305 using the BOE basis. Using the PoP methodology, the
revenue decreases to $7.9 billion. Using the 90/10 split,
the revenue decreases even further to $7.5 billion. It is a
reflection of the relative profitability of oil being
reduced by adding more costs to that side of the ledger,
bringing down progressivity and affecting the separate oil
tax calculation.
Commissioner Galvin explained slide 17 - the impact of
allocation method on SB 305 revenue using the 8 to 1 parity
with gas at $15. There is still a significant effect moving
from one allocation method to another. There is almost $1
billion difference between the two extreme methods of
allocation.
Commissioner Galvin stressed the importance, complexity,
and stakes associated with the cost allocation decision.
9:57:27 AM
Commissioner Galvin addressed the technical issues of SB
305 - slide 19. He explained the issue of inconsistent
treatment of negative production tax values.
Commissioner Galvin turned to slide 20 - another technical
issue. This one deals with the timing of adjustments under
AS 43.55.170, the reimbursements section. The current bill
is unclear if the adjustment is to occur before or after
the allocation process. If after, then the department needs
the authority and direction to allocate those adjustments
between oil and gas.
9:59:23 AM
Commissioner Galvin concluded with slide 21. He observed
that separating oil and gas taxes is not a panacea, and can
raise new and different risks to state revenues, compared
to the status quo. With uncertainties in the oil and gas
markets and wildly fluctuating price forecasts, the tax
system needs to be responsive to a wide range of potential
price scenarios. To achieve the state's objectives, the tax
system must balance the desire for revenue with creating an
attractive investment climate for a gas line.
10:00:34 AM
Senator Thomas appreciated the complexity of the cost
allocations and stated appreciation for the industry's
expertise. He voiced concern about parity, as shown on
slide 6. He questioned what impact shale gas would have on
Alaska's oil and gas production. He noted that the
suggestion was to increase the price of gas by 325 percent.
Senator Thomas asked how the Commissioner arrived at the
expected gas and oil prices used in the 15 to 1 scenario,
with the large increase in gas price compared to oil price,
considering the amount of shale gas being discovered.
Commissioner Galvin responded that in the forecasting world
the perception that the dynamics that exist today will be
long-standing and will affect future markets is the
dominant presumption. He maintained that the world does not
work that way. He thought the dynamics between supply and
demand would change. The hope is that there will be an
abundant supply of gas. It remains to be seen. He predicted
changes in expectations on the supply side and a transition
from oil-based demand to natural gas. He suggested not
setting policy on one expected outcome. Senator Thomas said
that uncertainty was his concern.
10:07:32 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Marks to comment on cost
allocation.
Mr. Marks remarked on cost allocation under the current
ACES production tax. He said it was necessary in some
circumstances to allocate upstream costs between oil and
gas, such as the example that Commissioner Galvin mentioned
regarding Cook Inlet. There is one other application where
instate gas, which is subject to a different rate
regardless of where it's produced, has to have its costs
allocated. Under current statute AS 43.55.165(h) the
department has the authority to allocate costs between oil
and gas for these purposes. He agreed that the magnitude of
the dollar impact and how costs are allocated is magnified
under SB 305. There are current regulations that could be
applied to SB 305 which are reasonable and give the option
of cost allocation. He agreed with Commissioner Galvin's
view of future allocations.
Mr. Marks stressed that the value of SB 305 is to point out
the difference between oil and gas and the necessity to
separate the two for tax purposes. He referred to slide 6
where money could be lost under SB 305 in a scenario with
no progressivity. He said that SB 305 could cause a loss of
money to the state and create an additional burden to the
industry. He thought that warranted further examination.
10:13:02 AM
Co-Chair Stedman pointed out that the committee has the
language to insert progressivity on gas into the bill if it
decides to do so.
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI asked at what point progressivity
kicks in with gas. Co-Chair Stedman suggested using the
current statute to answer.
Commissioner Galvin said progressivity kicks in at $30 bbl.
He explained that when looking at oil and gas in terms of
relative value, the statute provides a 6 to 1 value basis.
From a rough perspective on net production tax value, there
is a $5/MMBtu profit, taking transportation and upstream
costs into account. A $10 - $12 market price is needed in
order to return to a gas price that could stand on its own
weight in the progressivity realm. Because it is a six to
one price relationship, the dollar increase in the price of
gas has a six-times affect on the progressivity. For every
dollar increase in MMBtu above the $30 kickoff yields a 2.4
percent increase in progressivity on gas.
Senator Wielechowski summarized Commissioner Galvin's
answer. Commissioner Galvin agreed. Senator Wielechowski
noted that as gas prices increase, stripping out
progressivity under SB 305, there is a loss to the state of
$1.6 billion. Commissioner Galvin agreed. Senator
Wielechowski inquired what the loss to the state would be
if the price of gas increases. Commissioner Galvin
explained that he has a full range of models. Senator
Wielechowski calculated that at $125 oil and $20 gas, the
loss after stripping out progressivity would be about $5
billion per year. Commissioner Galvin thought that was
accurate.
10:18:14 AM
Co-Chair Stedman suggested running progressivity numbers on
gas.
Senator Wielechowski asked what the impact of SB 305 on
Cook Inlet gas would be. Commissioner Galvin reported that
it was examined as an issue, but not as individual tax
payer information.
Co-Chair Stedman informed the committee that a consultant
was working on a rough model for Cook Inlet for
consideration in the next CS. There is currently a
dissolution effect going on in Cook Inlet and also in the
Arctic. The analysis of that model is under way and work is
being done with the administration on projections and on a
fiscal note.
10:20:20 AM
Senator Wielechowski requested the Commissioner's opinion
if decoupling could legally occur after May 1, without
incurring any penalty under the AGIA definition of gas
production tax. Commissioner Galvin opined that the
legislature could change the tax system after the open
season. He stressed that the question was - what would the
tax be changed to. A future obligation would need to be
compared to the current system. It would be important to
address the value of the exemption. Under SB 305 a
significant exemption is not created if a new tax is
adopted after the open season.
Senator Wielechowski summarized that no income would be
lost and no penalty incurred. Commissioner Galvin agreed,
but clarified that "penalty" is not the right word; he used
the idea of an acceptable exemption to the shipper.
10:23:26 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked what the impact on regulations
would be if SB 305 were to pass. Commissioner Galvin
replied that it would raise the issue of cost allocation
and cause the legislature to make tax decisions and the
department to choose the methodology to use. The current
methodology was used for a very small impact to the overall
gas production tax in terms of revenue to the state. He
suggested revisiting the question from a policy standpoint.
Commissioner Galvin addressed the implications for lease
expenditures and other regulations if SB 305 were to pass.
The one regulation affected would be the impact on the tax
inducement. He doubted an attribution formula on the tax
would be used, but rather a determination of the size of
the exemption. He predicted that adding gas progressivity
after the open season would create an exemption that would
probably eliminate the progressivity increase.
Senator Wielechowski asked if SB 305 is passed without
progressivity, whether it is locked into that status after
May 1, 2010. He also inquired if progressivity were to be
added later on, whether all who bid at the open season
would be exempt from paying progressivity for ten years.
Commissioner Galvin replied it would to the extent that the
legislature leaves the inducement intact. To the extent
that the AGIA 10-year tax exemption remains in place, it
would result in the exemption applying to the increase in
the progressivity for gas. The actual tax paid would be
what is generated under SB 305.
Senator Wielechowski gave an example of gas at $15 and oil
at $120 per barrel where the state would be locked into a
system where it would lose about $1.6 billion for a decade.
Commissioner Galvin agreed, to the extent that the
exemption was left intact.
10:28:37 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked how the bill would affect Point
Thomson in cost allocation. Commissioner Galvin explained
that until there is gas production, any costs for oil and
gas are combined and the combined production tax is
figured. Next, the gas expenditures are taken out and
progressivity on oil alone is figured. If a cost allocation
method is used based on either barrel of oil equivalent, or
a production tax value, or a point of production value,
until there is any gas production, all of it is going to go
towards the oil. For example, all of the development costs
in Point Thomson would be deductible against oil and would
bring down the oil tax and the progressivity aspect of the
taxes that are paid for the partners who are existing
producers. Once there is gas production, then the cost
allocation method becomes critical. It raises a question
about allowing gas field development costs to be deductible
against oil production leading up to gas production and not
have the gas bear those costs when they are actually
producing.
10:32:51 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked if, under the current system
where gas and oil taxes are coupled, future oil production
and exploration are incentivized. He wondered if SB 305
would be a deterrent. Co-Chair Stedman stated that SB 305
was an inducement.
Commissioner Galvin discussed investment risks and the way
the current system works by providing a lower tax burden
when gas is relatively less valuable. This provides a
positive impact on the economics when it's needed the most.
He thought it was possible to create the same positive
impact for gas, even though it could be complicated and
costly. He maintained that the current system is better
than SB 305 regarding those economics.
Senator Wielechowski asked if SB 305 creates a negative,
positive, or no impact on the upcoming open season.
Commissioner Galvin said it was not possible to give a
single answer. He thought the effect of making any change
going into an open season was a negative. The economic
impact of SB 305 at the low end of the price expectation
for the gas line is a negative. When prices are favorable
for a gas line, there are positives under SB 305 from an
investment standpoint.
10:39:05 AM
Co-Chair Stedman referred to a letter from BP Exploration
(copy on file) which reviews the bill.
10:40:00 AM
Senator Huggins stated his impressions about AGIA and the
ability of all players to suggest changes. Commissioner
Galvin said it was possible that after the open season the
producers would work with the administration and the
legislature to craft a different fiscal system than what is
currently in place. He thought it was in the state's
interest to put a tax system in place that is appropriate
for this project, the state, and the producers.
Senator Huggins thought the conversation should have taken
place earlier, not just before the open season. Co-Chair
Stedman pointed out that the legislature has not set a gas
tax policy, but has spent a great deal of time discussing
oil. He maintained that a gas tax is a very complicated
injection into the fiscal regime. He agreed with Senator
Huggins that legislators wanted to deal with the gas tax
structure at an earlier date.
10:42:53 AM
Senator Ellis requested information about the new CS. He
inquired if the changes included cost allocation, a tighter
title, and an effective date of decoupling. Co-Chair
Stedman added that work has also been done to include the
progressivity structure. Senator Ellis asked if there are
other issues to think about. Co-Chair Stedman said that the
legislature would be working with the administration on
cost allocation. There could be other concerns brought
forward by the administration, the consultants, the
industry, or the public.
Senator Thomas asked about how capital expenditures for gas
facilities, such as treatment plants, would be dealt with.
Co-Chair Stedman asked Commissioner Galvin to address
credits that would apply to the gas line, treatment plant
and other gas facilities.
Commissioner Galvin spoke about upstream costs. The point
of production will be located at the inlet of the gas
treatment plant. The treatment plant and pipeline are
downstream and not deductible as lease expenditures. They
are deductible as incremental costs of the transportation
system.
Co-Chair Stedman added the dilution effect in Cook Inlet to
Senator Ellis' list. He noted that the committee would work
with the administration on fiscal notes.
SB 305 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
RECESSED 10:47:04 AM
RECONVENED 1:01:39 PM
SENATE BILL NO. 110
"An Act relating to the preservation of evidence."
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, sponsor, explained that the bill
puts new provisions in the criminal code for the
preservation of evidence. It requires state agencies and
municipal law enforcement agencies to preserve all evidence
in the most serious cases, such as unsolved murder, first
degree sexual assault, and first degree sexual abuse of a
minor. The bill requires that biological evidence be
retained as long as a person remains a prisoner in the
Department of Corrections or subject to registration as a
sex offender. The bill provides that evidence that is
impractical due to its size, or other characteristics, may
be destroyed after the removal and preservation of portions
that are likely to contain relevant evidence. The bill
allows for remedies to be provided for by judges after they
have heard both sides and protects agencies from civil
immunity due to an unintentional failure to comply with the
provisions. It allows for innocent people to prove their
innocence. Twenty-five other states have similar laws. The
bill is supported by the Department of Law, the Department
of Public Safety, the Association of Chiefs of Police, the
Alaska Innocents Project, the ACLU, and by the Alaska
Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.
1:05:44 PM
Senator Huggins MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 6, line 13, following "December 31,"
Delete: "2011"
Insert: "2012"
Page 6, line 24, following "January 1,"
Delete: "2011"
Insert: "2012"
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion purposes. He said
that the amendment corrects the dates.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Stedman reviewed the three fiscal notes: one
fiscal note is from the Department of Law for $5,000 to
cover travel costs associated with the task force, a zero
fiscal note from Alaska State Troopers Division, and one
fiscal note from the Department of Public Safety, statewide
support, for $134,200 to cover the cost of a new position
and storage. The committee requested an updated fiscal
note, but it was not provided. He reported that the
governor also has a bill that requires the preservation of
evidence and the same fiscal note provided by the
department for that bill is zero. To be consistent the
committee has drafted a zero fiscal note to be adopted in
lieu of the department's note. There are a total of three
fiscal notes.
1:07:24 PM
Senator Ellis MOVED to report CSSB 110(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 110 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation, and with two new zero fiscal notes by
the Department of Public Safety and a new zero fiscal note
by the Department of Law.
1:08:26 PM
SENATE BILL NO. 257
"An Act relating to funding for youth courts; and
relating to accounting for criminal fines."
Senator Dennis Egan, sponsor, read the sponsor statement.
· Senate Bill 257 provides a sustainable source of
funding for Alaska's youth courts.
· Every youth court in the state is a little different,
but they share the same basic idea: Young people
picked up for misdemeanors, violations, and alcohol
offenses get a trial by their peers.
· Youth courts work. Only 10 percent of juveniles who go
through these programs reoffend.
· That saves the state money - roughly $10,000 per
offender.
· It also means the Juvenile Justice professionals at
the Department of Health & Social Services don't have
to dedicate resources to the little stuff.
o That's a 2-way benefit - real attention and real
consequences for young people who otherwise don't
always get a hard look.
o And our well-trained youth corrections people are
available for the 'hard cases.'
· There's another great benefit for Alaska - the kids
who volunteer in these programs get great training in
the basics of criminal law, research, writing, and
public speaking.
· The bill chooses a funding source for these courts - a
portion of criminal fines.
o Currently adults' criminal fines are unrestricted
general fund.
o SB 257 designates up to 25% of those fines for
youth courts.
o Making criminals pay for crime prevention makes
sense
o I look forward to hearing from the public, and
answering committee members' questions.
1:10:00 PM
Co-Chair Stedman noted three zero fiscal notes, one from
the Department of Law, one from the Department of Health
and Social Services, and one from the Court System.
KERRI FOX, BETHEL YOUTH COURT, (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She shared that Bethel
has been trying to get a youth court started for several
years. Some progress has recently been made. She did not
want to lose that momentum.
Senator Ellis asked how the court connects the elders with
youthful offenders. Ms. Fox replied that when youth are
charged with minor consuming, they come before a panel of
elders and youths. Guidance is offered.
1:12:56 PM
LISA ALBERT-KONECKY, MAT-SU YOUTH COURT, WASILLA, (via
teleconference), testified in favor of the bill. Youth
courts show a strong community-supported program. The youth
court in Wasilla is struggling for funding. Each youth
court reflects their community's needs. She urged support
of the bill.
1:14:57 PM
MEGAN STANNELAND, ADVOCATE, JUNEAU YOUTH COURT, testified
in support of the bill. She stressed that youth courts are
youth advocating for youth, which gives the program power
and momentum. The youth courts attempts to find creative
sentencing using community service that fits the
individual.
Senator Thomas pointed out that youth courts are supported
by pro bono trial lawyers. Youth courts reduce recidivism
dramatically.
Senator Egan agreed. The recidivism rate is 10 percent
compared to 30 percent in regular court cases.
SB 257 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
1:18:55 PM
SENATE BILL NO. 246
"An Act increasing the number of superior court judges
designated for the third judicial district; and
providing for an effective date."
DOUG WOOLIVER, ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEY FOR THE COURT
SYSTEM, presented an overview of the bill. He pointed out
that the legislation was introduced by the Rules Committee
at the request of the Supreme Court. The bill would add one
new Superior Court Judge in Anchorage and the intent is to
have that judge sit on the civil bench and hear civil
cases. Anchorage Superior Court Judges are the busiest in
the state due to the number of cases and case types. Two
case types in particular draw a considerable amount of
judicial time.
Mr. Wooliver explained that the amount of time needed for
Child In Need of Aid (CINA) cases and Family Law cases has
increased significantly over the years. Appearing before
the same judicial officer better serves families and
facilitates the whole process. Close court supervision
helps to keep families on track. This closer supervision
takes more time, but will help the family get back together
as the goal is to unify the family.
Mr. Wooliver informed the committee that Family Law cases
have increased due to the number of people who appear
without an attorney. This creates an increased amount of
work for the judges; however, they realize that adding
another judge is expensive, but necessary. An attempt will
also be made to find more case managers.
1:24:06 PM
Co-Chair Stedman requested more information about case load
per judicial district. Mr. Wooliver mentioned that
Anchorage, followed by Juneau and Fairbanks had the
heaviest loads. He assumed that it would be necessary to
return to the legislature next year to request more judges.
Senator Hoffman asked for information about the growth of
Superior Court Judges in the state for the past 10 years.
Mr. Wooliver said he would get back to the committee with
that information.
Co-Chair Stedman also asked for a 10-year history of court
loads by judicial district.
1:26:02 PM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that there was one zero fiscal note
from the Judicial Council and one fiscal note for $499,100
in general funds reflecting the cost of a new judge and
support staff.
Senator Olson asked if there would be enough physical space
for a new judge. Mr. Wooliver said they were making a new
superior court available in the Nesbit Court House, so
there is one court room available for this new seat.
Senator Thomas asked if the need for more judges and
prisons was because of a population increase or due to
other factors.
1:27:59 PM
Mr. Wooliver noted that the therapeutic court has a lower
recidivism rate but does not affect a large part of the
population. The Department of Corrections has refocused on
treatment issues as a way to help reduce recidivism rates.
The system does work, but it is a long road.
SB 246 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:29 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Articles.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 110 |
| SB110 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 110 |
| SB110 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2009 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 110 |
| SB246 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 246 |
| SB_257_Sponsor_Statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 257 |
| SB 257 Juneau DistCourt LOS.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 257 |
| SB257 Letter of Support.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 257 |
| SB257 Ketchikan Magistrate LOS.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 257 |
| SB257 JYC Bd LOS.doc |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 257 |
| Wasilla PD LOS.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 257 |
| Palmer Distcourt LOS.doc |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 257 |
| LOS Wrangell Bethel.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 257 |
| Kodiak PD LOS.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 257 |
| Kethcikan DistCourt LOS.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 257 |
| Wrangell D.Rooney LOS.doc |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 257 |
| Letter in Support Teen Court.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 257 |
| AYC FM LOS.doc |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 257 |
| North Star Magistrate LOS.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 257 |
| Kodiak COC LOS.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 257 |
| Kodiak Judge LOS.doc |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 257 |
| Nome Mag LOS.doc |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 257 |
| SB 305 Proposed SFIN CS Version E.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| SB305 3-12-10 DOR Presentation.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| SB 305 BP Testimony 3-12 SFC.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| SB 110 SFC Am. #1.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 110 |
| SJR 21 Southeast Conference ltr of support .pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 21 |
| Support Ltr.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 238 |
| Letter of Support.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 257 |
| SB 246 Superior Court . Case Filings.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 246 |