Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/29/2019 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act requiring law enforcement agencies to send
sexual assault examination kits for testing within six
months after collection; and providing for an
effective date."
9:01:42 AM
SYLVAN ROBB, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, reviewed
the new fiscal impact note from the Department of
Corrections (DOC), Population Management, OMB Component
Number 1381. She elaborated that the bill affected DOC in
three areas: tampering with an electronic monitoring
device; the changes to misconduct with a controlled
substance; and changes to the sentencing ranges for Class B
felonies. The department determined that the changes would
increase expenditures in FY 2020. The increased number of
offenders would stabilize in the second year and subsequent
years. She pointed to the analysis on the second page of
the fiscal note. The department projected that the number
of inmates would increase by 130 in the first year and by
328 each subsequent year. The department averaged 4,485
inmates during the first quarter of CY 19, [calendar year]
leaving the system with additional capacity for 179
additional inmates. In the first year, because the system
had capacity for the additional inmates, costs for the 130
additional inmates was calculated at the marginal cost of
$44.98 per day for a total cost of $2,132.7. The additional
149 inmates that exceed existing capacity were calculated
at the full cost care rate of $168.74 per inmate per day.
9:04:52 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked whether the current cost of care
included expenditures for behavioral health issues. She
asked how behavioral health fit into the fiscal note.
Ms. Robb replied that the inmates that exceeded the current
capacity with a cost of $168.74 included physical and
behavioral health care. Vice-Chair Johnston noted that the
extra capacity was presently 179. She inquired whether DOC
was able to address the behavioral health costs for the 179
extra inmates. Ms. Robb answered that the numbers provided
for the level of care the state currently provided.
9:06:58 AM
Representative LeBon noted that the bill made tampering
with an electronic monitoring (EM) device a crime. He asked
whether tampering was currently a crime and what had
changed in the bill. Ms. Robb was unable to answer the
question. Representative LeBon referred to page 2 of the
fiscal note that stated, in CY 18 there were 110 instances
of EM tampering and asked if the fiscal note assumed the
same number of tampering in subsequent years. He asked
whether it was possible the number would decrease due to
the increased sentence for tampering. Ms. Robb answered
that the historical data were the only assumptions DOC
could base its fiscal notes on. She offered that attempting
to predict behavior based on statute changes was difficult.
Representative Josephson noted that the bill incorporated
much of HB49-Crimes; Sentencing; Drugs; Theft; Reports
introduced by the governor. He could see why the governor's
proposed reforms may cost $40 million. He asked whether the
$40 million was anticipated and reflected by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) in the budget and the
governors overall fiscal plan.
9:09:57 AM
Ms. Robb replied that the governor had made his commitment
to public safety clear and he was prepared to increase
public safety budgets. She deferred the answer to OMB.
Co-Chair Wilson calculated that 4,664 inmates averaged 485
beds but currently, she was informed that there were about
450 beds. She asked about the 179 beds currently available.
Ms. Robb delineated that she used the daily average rate
for the first quarter of CY 19 and reminded Co-Chair
Wilson that the prison population fluctuated daily. She
determined that using a quarterly average was a more
reliable statistic than merely basing the number on a
single day.
Co-Chair Wilson asked what percentage of capacity the 179
beds reflected. Co-Chair Wilson determined that the answer
was around 97 to 98 percent capacity and that the average
seemed high compared to the current daily numbers of 90 to
91 percent. Ms. Robb guessed that the Co-Chair obtained the
numbers from the daily count sheets. The daily count sheet
average percentages were compared against the absolute
maximum capacity of 4,838. The department was prohibited
from operating at maximum capacity for more than 30 days,
due to the Cleary Court case [Cleary versus State 1976].
Co-Chair Wilson asked what percentage was considered
maximum for practical purposes. Ms. Robb replied that the
general capacity was 4,664 inmates and DOC could operate at
the capacity indefinitely. Co-Chair Wilson asked if the
department could operate at that range even though DOC was
short 70 correctional officers. Ms. Robb answered that the
officers were working overtime. She added that the
department was working hard to recruit correctional
officers. Co-Chair Wilson wanted to ensure the capacity
numbers corresponded to a certain number of correctional
officers. She asked whether Ms. Robb had additional backup
statistics; the department had only considered FY 18. She
described the data as a snapshot versus examining several
years of data or further back to prior SB 91. She read from
page 2 of the fiscal note:
For felony A, felony B and felony C as well as
misdemeanor B cases of misconduct involving a
controlled substance the department projects an
increase in inmates. The department projects an
additional 118.9 inmates per day for year 1 and an
increase of 260.0 inmates in the second year and each
subsequent year.
Co-Chair Wilson wondered exactly where the numbers were
derived and what years they were based on and at what level
of crime; misdemeanors of felonies. She assumed DOC had
research staff.
9:14:03 AM
Ms. Robb affirmed that a research analyst was assembling
the data for the department. She reported that the
department strove for the best analysis and best data in
order to obtain a reflection that was as close as
possible to the proposed changes in law. She offered more
information. She used a felony B crime as an example. She
explained that for the felony B sentence increases, she
took the length of stay for felony B inmates from CY 14 and
CY 18 and noted the difference. She elucidated that CY 14
was chosen because it was prior to passage of SB 91 and was
also used as the baseline year for SB 91 numbers. The CY 14
number was larger, and she employed the increased length of
stay relative to the current numbers to the numbers prior
to passage of SB 91 measured against how many offenders in
2018. Co-Chair Wilson requested the data. She understood
that it was only as accurate as who broke the law. She
acknowledged that the numbers would change based on any
amendments.
Representative Carpenter asked why DOC could employ the
the marginal cost rate versus the full cost of care rate
for the 179 and additional inmates at full cost. He asked
why DOC used the full rate later. Ms. Robb acknowledged the
rates were confusing. She responded that until they reached
the point where the system exceeded capacity, the marginal
rate represented the additional cost of the 179 individuals
at $44.98 per person. She elucidated that the number
reflected food, medical care, medications, clothing, etc.
Once the institutions exceeded capacity the system needed
to gain additional capacity, and it was necessary to
account for all costs at $168.74 per inmate per day, that
was inclusive of running a facility, transportation,
healthcare, utilities, staffing, etc. as well as the items
included in the marginal care rate.
9:18:29 AM
Representative Carpenter listed what was included in the
marginal care rate and deduced that the rate was effective
while institutions operated at general capacity and any
amount over general capacity meant the full rate would be
necessary. Ms. Robb answered in the affirmative. She used a
classroom as an example where the population increased from
23 to 24, which incurred only marginal costs. She offered
that at some point a tipping point was reached in the
system and beyond that point a cost increase occurred. The
situation was similar with DOCs institutions.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked about overtime and the capacity
of employees. She stated that there were currently up to 70
positions unfilled, which required overtime from other
employees. She asked whether the current costs included
overtime. Ms. Robb replied that since they were not paying
for the 70 positions and the slack in the budget helped
cover the costs for overtime. She stressed that DOC wanted
to fill the full time positions. Vice-Chair Johnston asked
if the cost of overtime did not exceed the vacancy. Ms.
Robb replied in the affirmative. Vice-Chair Johnston asked
about the cost of hiring and training an employee for the
positions. Ms. Robb answered DOC had calculated training
costs of approximately $43,000 including the cost to send
the officer to the 7 week correctional academy, transport
to the academy in Palmer, per diem, pay while training,
coverage while an employee was training, academy staff
costs, and officer supplies.
9:22:28 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if the number was included in the
costs reflected on the fiscal note. Ms. Robb answered that
the $168.74 number was inclusive of everything including
the training elements.
Co-Chair Wilson questioned whether all costs were inclusive
in the rate. Ms. Robb replied in the affirmative and added
that the number included all direct and indirect costs. Co-
Chair Wilson asked about the anticipated amount of over-
time and how much was currently spent. Ms. Robb would
follow up. Co-Chair Wilson asked whether she kept a running
total of overtime and if there was a way to mitigate it or
did the department rely on supplemental appropriations
instead. Ms. Robb replied that the department did not just
spend and ask for supplemental revenue. She acknowledged
that proper coverage was maintained but DOC was always
looking for ways to keep cost down and kept close tabs on
the budget. She noted that if costs increased in one area,
the department looked for ways to contract in another
area.
9:24:56 AM
Co-Chair Wilson asked what the financial plan for DOC was
if it could not hire enough officers. She noted the
department was down by a significant number of correctional
officers. She noted that current officers were racking up
overtime. She wondered whether there was a point where it
became too expensive. Ms. Robb responded that there was not
really a replacement for the needed correctional officers.
There was not an outlet valve due to the stringent
requirements. The department had about 904 correctional
officer positions and it eventually filled the vacancies,
but it was a strain.
Representative Carpenter asked where the break point was
when the marginal rate could be achieved. Ms. Robb replied
that it was the point where the system reached the general
capacity number of 4,664. Representative Carpenter looked
at the marginal cost rate. He asked at what number of
inmates DOC stopped using the full cost rate and moved to
the marginal rate. Ms. Robb responded that the $168.74 was
the cost to run the institution which included a large
amount of overhead costs. The utilities do not change per
number of inmates and some other costs were not variable
upon the number of inmates. She delineated that once they
were above capacity they started taking in the full costs.
9:28:36 AM
Ms. Robb pointed out that the marginal rate had been used
up to capacity and the full rate beyond that. Healthcare
was included in the cost of care, but the costs were
reported in its own fiscal note because it was a separate
appropriation.
Ms. Robb moved to new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Corrections, Health and Rehabilitation
Services, OMB Component Number 2952. She detailed that the
bill pushed the prison population beyond current capacity.
The department proposed to reopen the Palmer Correctional
Center (PCC). The department would need to rehire seven
individuals to provide medical care to reopen a facility.
The fiscal note showed the costs in the personal services
line [$908.5 thousand]. The miscellaneous line costs
reflected healthcare cost encompassing contractual services
and commodities calculated at $36.86 per inmate per day.
The total for 149 inmates was approximately $2 million. The
total cost to reopen the section of the Palmer facility was
estimated at $2.9 million.
Co-Chair Wilson wondered what DOC was planning regarding
the shortage of healthcare professionals including mental
health professionals. She understood that the department
was currently short staffed in the areas and was
encountering difficulty hiring staff.
9:31:12 AM
Ms. Robb responded that the department had difficulty
recruiting healthcare providers for its correctional
facilities. She reported that DOC was short by about 50
people in the healthcare rehabilitation services area
including psychiatric nurses and health practitioners. The
Division of Personnel had done a study on nurses and
resulted in a pay increase that she hoped would make the
positions more competitive.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked whether the
institution looked at a job-share program with local
hospitals to rotate nurses. Ms. Robb answered that
currently when the facilities were short on nurses, DOC
asked existing staff to travel to provide coverage. She
exemplified that the Lemon Creek Correctional Center
(LCCC)[Juneau] lacked enough nursing staff, nurses from
Southcentral Alaska were brought in when available or
contract agency nurses were used. She noted that
Representative Sullivan-Leonards idea was interesting.
Vice-Chair Johnston remembered that 25 percent of the
prison population was considered to have severe mental
health issues. She asked whether the department considered
the idea of enlisting one facility to house the severely
mentally ill population, which could lead to cost
efficiencies.
9:34:04 AM
Ms. Robb could not answer if the discussion regarding a
mental health unit ever took place. She offered that there
were challenges related to the transportation of prisoners.
She related that the department was always looking for ways
to save costs on healthcare and the idea was worth
exploring.
Co-Chair Wilson wished that the commissioner or deputy
commissioner were also available to answer policy related
questions.
Representative Carpenter noted that all three DOC fiscal
notes referred to inmate population increases exceeding
current capacity. He asked whether the number included a
reduction in the number of inmates due to sending some out-
of-state or if the number reflected the entire anticipated
population. Ms. Robb answered that the fiscal note was in
response to the budget passed by the House that precluded
sending inmates out-of-state.
9:35:43 AM
Ms. Robb addressed a new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Corrections, Population Management, allocated
to the Palmer Correctional Center, OMB Component Number
712. She explained that the appropriation reflected the
one-time costs for reopening the facility at minimum
capacity. She delineated that the costs associated with
staffing the 42 PCNs [Position Control Number] were
included on the Institution Director's Office fiscal note
because the positions were included in the full cost of
care number. The building was empty since the fall of 2016
and needed some routine work before opening. In addition,
any useful equipment was repurposed when closed and
required replacing.
Co-Chair Wilson surmised that the total cost for the
additional 149 inmates was approximately $15 million when
she added the health and rehabilitation, population
management institution appropriations along with the
current fiscal note. Ms. Robb replied in the affirmative.
She clarified that the numbers included the one-time costs
reflected on the Palmer correctional fiscal note, the
inmate full costs shown on the Institution Director's
Office fiscal note, and the healthcare costs for
individuals that exceeded current capacity. Co-Chair Wilson
asked what the total cost to reopen the Palmer facility for
the 149 individuals was. Ms. Robb was unable to provide the
answer and would follow up. Co-Chair Wilson inquired
whether DOC should consider closing smaller facilities and
open more of the Palmer facility for cost efficiencies. Ms.
Robb replied that the Palmer Correctional Center was
comprised of several buildings. The minimum section that
was reopening was a self-contained building with food
service. Co-Chair Wilson asked about the capacity of the
building. Ms. Robb replied that the building housed 176
people. Co-Chair Wilson surmised that they would be at the
full capacity of the building. However, if the population
exceeded the projection, she asked whether DOC had to open
another building at what cost. Ms. Robb agreed that the
Palmer building would be close to capacity. She indicated
that if a different bill passed that increased the number
of inmates, DOC would look at opening the entire Palmer
facility, which included a medium security unit that was
larger than the minimum security. Co-Chair Wilson asked if
Palmer had two buildings and once the minimum security
building was reopened, any additional need required opening
the entire facility.
9:40:55 AM
Ms. Robb replied that she did not know the specific answer,
but DOC would consider opening the entire facility. She
noted it would be preferable to defer the answer to experts
in the department.
Representative Josephson relayed that the governor
introduced other crime bills that would increase the inmate
population. He informed the committee that the bills
pertained to pretrial, and probation and parole. He asked
what the administration's plan was in terms of inmate
growth regarding passage of the other bills. Ms. Robb
answered that DOC would need to see where they were in
terms of legislation that passed. She remarked that there
were currently 16 crime bills under consideration by the
legislature. The scenario could lead to increases beyond
the Palmer facility capacity, but some inmates may be
eligible candidates for Community Regional Centers (CRC) or
EM release. Co-Chair Wilson asked what the anticipated
incarcerated population was if all three of the governor's
crime legislation passed. Ms. Robb replied that HB 51-
Probation; Parole; Sentences; Credits and HB 52- Crimes;
Sex Crimes; Sentencing; Parole were primarily focused on
probation, parole, and pretrial and did not significantly
impact the prison population. House Bill 49 would greatly
increase the state's prison population by about 525 inmates
and had the largest impact on the incarcerated population.
She highlighted that the HB 49 projections were 465
additional inmates in the first year, and 523 and 528 in
the subsequent two years.
Co-Chair Wilson asked whether the impact to the prison
population was minimal, if the other bills that removed
credit for time on pretrial EM were adopted.
9:44:25 AM
Ms. Robb replied that adoption might have some effect but
most of the impact on the prison population was due to HB
49. Co-Chair Wilson noted that the pretrial provision was
not contained in HB 49 but could be included via amendment.
She deemed that if less offenders received credit for EM
jail time would increase. She wondered how passage of the
bill resulted in minimal impact because the credit would no
longer exist. Ms. Robb replied that she was not in
possession of all the information regarding the many
versions of the crime bills. She offered to follow up.
Representative Josephson asked whether the 525 figure was
the number anticipated by the administration if the
governor's entire crime bill package passed. Ms. Robb
replied that the number was only based on passage of HB 49.
Representative Josephson inquired whether the governor
recommended moving prisoners out-of-state due to cost
savings and lack of capacity. Ms. Robb responded that she
was not part of the discussion and would not speculate.
9:46:40 AM
Representative Josephson was broadly supportive of the
governor's crime bills, albeit with some concerns. He
reiterated his prior question. He was starting to sense
that the state would not have the capacity. He asked
whether the governor had proposed sending inmates out-of-
state for both reasons; capacity and costs.
KELLY GOODE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, understood that the proposal had been limited
to a cost savings measure. Representative Josephson asked
for verification that the measure was proposed for only one
purpose. Ms. Goode believed that the decision was merely a
cost savings measure.
Vice-Chair Ortiz thought the proposal was all the same
thing - trying to save money one way or another. Ms. Goode
agreed that the connection existed.
Co-Chair Wilson surmised that Representative Josephson
point was that DOC was not going to shut down Wildwood
Correctional Center because the population was growing big
time and the state was not saving money.
9:49:03 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard spoke to the high priority
of public safety and acknowledged that the bills would
increase the prison population. She conjectured that the
legislation was a response to public outcry. Ms. Goode
asked for clarification. She interpreted the question to
mean that the bills addressed the publics concern over
crime and public safety. Representative Sullivan-Leonard
replied in the affirmative. Ms. Goode answered in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair Wilson asked where the administrations data was
showing that if a person was locked up for a longer period
that somehow it would reduce recidivism. She noted the
premise that without proper treatment an inmate would
reoffend, which was the premise of SB 91. She wondered
where the administrations data was refuting the premise
and demonstrating that longer incarceration was most
effective. Ms. Goode noted that the question was a policy
question for the administration. Co-Chair Wilson stated
that DOC was before the committee and the administration
was uncommunicative.
Representative Carpenter commented that if offenders chose
not to they will not be reformed. The public needed to
realize that some people were bad individuals and policy
was necessary to reflect the belief. He cited the following
from the page 2 fiscal note analysis:
Services include fire sprinkler/alarm inspection and
repair (if needed), fence alarm testing and repair (if
needed), back flow preventer inspection and repair (if
needed), water testing and Department of Environmental
Conservation approval to operate, waste water operator
training/certification, phone system activation and
programming, boiler inspection and service,
freezer/cooler inspection and startup, kitchen hood
inspection, and other smaller services.
Representative Carpenter deduced that the inspections to
determine whether the repairs or replacements were
necessary had not been performed. He asked whether the
numbers accounted for repair and replacement of if the
costs could grow.
9:52:24 AM
Ms. Robb replied that the department felt fairly
confident with the number. The facility had only been
closed since the fall of 2016. The department did not
anticipate everything would need repair but had included a
margin in the fiscal note with the anticipation that some
items would need repairs. Representative Carpenter
concluded that the scenario opened the possibility for a
supplemental to cover the cost if something was found to be
wrong with the facility.
Representative Merrick pointed to the cost care rate of
$168.74 and asked if the rate was the same at maximum,
medium, and minimum security. Ms. Robb answered in the
affirmative and added that the number was inclusive for the
whole system.
9:54:20 AM
Representative Merrick asked about the difference between a
minimum, medium, and maximum security and the facilities
associated with them.
Ms. Goode asked if she was speaking specifically about the
Palmer Correctional Facility. Representative Merrick was
speaking to correctional facilities in general. Ms. Goode
replied that minimum security like the Point Mackenzie
Correctional Farm and the minimum facility at the Palmer
Correctional Center did not have fencing and contained
various housing structures. She elaborated that medium
security facilities had more security and maximum had the
highest level of security and was considered a closed
facility that in some cases used double perimeter fencing.
Representative Merrick surmised that a lower security
prison would cost less to run than a maximum. Ms. Goode
asked for clarification. Representative Merrick was
speaking about facilities in general. She asked if the
reason inmates were sent to a minimum security prison
versus a medium security facility was due to cost savings.
Ms. Robb replied that the department would never send a
person to a minimum security prison only to save money. She
reiterated that the cost of care was aggregated because
some inmates care was very expensive for things like mental
health and detox treatment that cost roughly $800 per day.
In addition, cost of care varied by areas of the state;
Nome and Bethel facilities were more costly to operate. She
recapped that the $168.74 was an aggregate number.
9:57:17 AM
Co-Chair Wilson referenced the earlier question by
Representative Josephson regarding the passage of other
crime bills impact on costs. She asked how many additional
inmates beyond the 525 in HB 49 the bills would add. Ms.
Goode would prefer to provide additional fiscal notes from
other bills to show the exact numbers.
Representative Josephson stated that he could find the
information. He asked whether the fiscal notes expressed
the population increase expected for each bill. He hoped
that the department had thought about the totality of the
combined legislation and the number of individuals that
would be added to the system. Ms. Goode answered that the
department had taken the issue very seriously and
considered the totality of the crime bills. She directed
Representative Josephson to the analysis of each fiscal
note for details.
Co-Chair Wilson surmised that the bills effect on increased
population would exceed the 525 number.
Representative Carpenter asked whether DOC shipped inmates
from full capacity centers to other areas in the state due
to the closure of the Palmer facility. He wondered whether
every facility would be at maximum capacity when the Palmer
facility reopened.
9:59:50 AM
Ms. Robb replied in the affirmative. She added that the
current general capacity of 4,664 inmates included all the
department's institutions. Representative Carpenter thought
that the costs in rural facilities were more expensive than
urban areas. Ms. Robb agreed; running a prison in rural
Alaska was more expensive than in urban areas.
Representative Carpenter guessed that DOC filled up the
most expensive prisons in order to close a less expensive
facility. Ms. Goode answered that the rural prisons were
operating at capacity.
Co-Chair Wilson asked how the department dealt with opening
a building that was only one level with an expected
increase in more dangerous offenders. Ms. Goode answered
that DOC had explored the scenario and were confident they
had enough minimum security individuals to fill Palmer
included in the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Wilson deduced that the inmates did not qualify
for a CRC or EM. Ms. Goode answered in the affirmative. Co-
Chair Wilson asked what types of crimes qualified for the
minimum level. Ms. Goode answered that many were sex
offenders that could not be released in CRCs. Co-Chair
Wilson questioned whether the 179 individuals were mostly
sex offenders. Ms. Goode answered that not all, but some
were sex offenders. She added that the prior population of
Palmer included sex offenders. Co-Chair Wilson questioned
whether most of the 179 inmates would be sex offenders.
10:03:52 AM
Ms. Goode responded that many the inmates would be sex
offenders. She assured Co-Chair Wilson that DOC confirmed
with Classifications that enough minimum security inmates
were expected to fill the Palmer facility. Co-Chair Wilson
wanted specific data and requested that the data analyst
testify when necessary. Ms. Goode replied that the data was
reflected in the analysis but would comply.
Ms. Robb reviewed the new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Corrections, 24 Hour Institutional Utilities,
OMB Component Number 2976. She explained that facilities
were included in the daily cost of care rate. However, when
the Palmer facility was closed the cost of utilities was
not decremented and due to inflation utility costs had
increased. The current cost of utilities for the 24 Hour
Institutional Utilities line was fully expended and the
fiscal note projected the utility cost at the Palmer
facility.
Co-Chair Wilson noted that the $168 was an average. She
asked why it would not reflect the true cost in Palmer
where energy costs were more affordable. Ms. Robb replied
that the department currently spent all the money allocated
for utilities. Co-Chair Wilson stressed that the projected
inmates were new and calculated at the full costs of care.
She assumed utilities were included in the costs. She
wondered why, in relation the new inmates at full cost of
care, funding was taken out of the department's current
utility budget. Ms. Robb affirmed that utilities were
included in the cost of care but worried that due to
utility increases the number would fall short. Co-Chair
Wilson remained confused by the answer.
Vice-Chair Johnston thought the fiscal note could be a
result of the recent spikes in utility costs. She thought
that departments might have placed utilities as a separate
line item in their budgets. She believed that deferred
maintenance caused a significant increase in utility costs
and significant increases within the Regulatory Commission
of Alaska (RCA) were expected. She surmised that the
scenario impacted the Palmer facility and DOC was acting in
caution.
Co-Chair Wilson judged that the $168 was not the true
amount and suggested the number be adjusted to reflect the
cost of utilities. She believed that the utility issue
affected other DOC facilities and suggested a breakdown by
facility. She stated that she was pretty sure that Palmer
[utilities] was cheaper than Fairbanks.
Representative Merrick asked if the inmates did anything to
raise revenue. Ms. Goode asked for clarification.
Representative Merrick clarified that she was asking if
inmates had a way of generating revenue. Ms. Goode noted
that the term was prison industry that included the Lemon
Creek facility doing laundry for the ferry system. However,
currently no major prison industry was in operation.
Representative Merrick asked whether inmates offered public
services or community service. Ms. Goode answered in the
affirmative and reported that the inmates at the Wildwood
facility grew vegetables and decided what community
organizations would receive the vegetables.
10:11:00 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard cited the fiscal note
analysis showing that the utilities costs in 2016 for PCC
were $830 thousand. Ms. Goode affirmed the statement.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard did not believe that a
portion of the $168. costs went to utilities. She asked for
a breakdown of costs for each facility and costs per
inmate. Ms. Robb would follow up.
Representative Carpenter looked at the $830 thousand for
2016 utilities for PCC. He deduced that examining PCCs
historical usage and comparing it to current rates would
show the expected cost in current dollars and reflected the
actual number eliminating the need for guessing.
10:13:19 AM
Ms. Robb offered to follow up by looking at the actuals.
Co-Chair Wilson was uncertain whether the costs reflected
the utilities in one building or the entire facility. She
wanted a cost breakdown.
Representative Carpenter stated his understanding of the
previous conversation regarding the inclusion of utility
costs, yet they were engaged in a conversation about
additional utility costs. He thought it should be a
function of the number of inmates divided by costs.
Co-Chair Wilson reiterated that the number may not be $168
per inmate and agreed that a breakdown of costs per
institution was necessary.
10:14:58 AM
ROB HENDERSON, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), addressed the new
fiscal impact note from the Department of Law, Criminal
Division, OMB Component Number 2202. He explained that the
fiscal note showed an appropriation in the amount of $
1,121.1 million for the addition of 5 new prosecutors
statewide and associated support staff. He indicated that
the primary driver of the increased cost for five
additional prosecutors was related to the change in the
drug laws. He elucidated that law enforcement referrals
dropped significantly by 740 cases between 2015 and 2017
due to reclassifying all the drug distribution offenses
down one classification or two classifications and
reclassifying all drug possession to misdemeanor drug
referrals. The Department of Law (DOL) predicted that the
referrals would increase as a result of passage of HB 20
because law enforcement would reprioritize investigations
of drug offenses. The department observed a decrease in the
number of misdemeanor drug prosecutions in the same time
period and expected them to return to pre-2016 levels.
10:17:18 AM
AT EASE
10:18:36 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson noted that the committee needed an updated
fiscal note and would take the issue up at the 1:30 p.m.
meeting.
10:19:10 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, reviewed
the new fiscal impact note from Judiciary, Alaska Court
System, OMB Component Number 768. She reiterated that DOL
would have an updated fiscal impact note for the five new
prosecutors and four new staff based on the new drug
classifications and anticipation of new drug cases filed.
She communicated that in response, the Court System needed
staff and judges to account for the increase. The system
was seeking to bring back two pro tem judges [retired
judges] to travel around the state along with a court
clerk. The system also needed five additional staff to
account for the increases. She noted that the Public
Defender Agency (PDA) and Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
also requested additional attorneys.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if the state had the capacity for
pro tem judges. She asked if any were able and willing to
fill the positions. Ms. Mead answered in the affirmative.
She indicated that some judges may want to work on a
specific case and others for example, were willing to take
on a one-year assignment in Bethel or travel around the
state. Co-Chair Wilson asked whether more cases would be
heard through the increased attorneys and judges.
10:22:15 AM
Ms. Mead answered that the positions the court was seeking
were in response to the bill. Co-Chair Wilson reported that
there were 750 additional individuals who would be charged
with felonies. She mentioned the current case backlog and
wondered if the backlog would increase or through the
addition of the positions would remain at the same level.
Ms. Mead expectated that adding the two pro tem judges and
five clerks would be enough to keep pace with the 750
additional cases resulting from the bill. Co-Chair Wilson
commented that the point was fast justice.
Representative Josephson was considering an amendment that
would back away from the bill regarding the governor's
proposal to treat first time offenders for misconduct of a
controlled substance in the fourth degree as Class C
felons. His proposal would impose the first time felony
only if the offenders did not complete treatment. He
considered how to calculate the cost of the treatment. He
looked at the Court System database and listed various
courts including therapeutic, tribal, veterans, and other
courts. He wanted to determine how his proposal would
affect the Court Systems costs.
10:25:12 AM
Ms. Mead asked for clarity. She wondered if he was
proposing to expand therapeutic courts in general or
whether there would be additional suspended entry of
judgment (SEJ) cases. Representative Josephson responded in
the affirmative. Ms. Mead answered that a successful felony
or misdemeanor SEJ resulted in case dismissal. Additional
SEJs would not cost the Court System more. The expansion of
therapeutic court would have a substantial fiscal impact
creating logistical problems and was difficult to
implement. She delineated that Judiciary favored
therapeutic courts but the reason they were not expanded
was due to the lack of housing, treatment, and employment
in communities. Representative Josephson noted that the
state could not offer the same thing in every community. He
used an example of a person located in Selawick. He
wondered how the courts dealt with the issue. Ms. Mead
clarified that Representative Josephsons point was what
happened if an offender resided in a community where the
therapeutic court was at capacity or did not exist in the
area. She relayed that the issue was not resolved. The
court was a benefit that could be offered in some locations
but not others. She determined that if an offender desired
a resolution in therapeutic court it possibly could happen
but would not be in the offenders home community. A legal
resolution for the matter was nonexistent.
10:28:51 AM
Co-Chair Wilson asked whether anyone tracked the number of
individuals on EM versus those who received credit for time
on EM. Ms. Mead answered that the Court System did not
track the information. She was unsure who had the
information.
10:29:48 AM
JAMES STINSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), reviewed
the new fiscal impact note from the Department of
Administration, Office of Public Advocacy, OMB Component
Number 43. He explained that the Office of Public Advocacy
(OPA) fiscal note appropriated $350.9 thousand and noted
that the impact was largely based on figures from the
Department of Law. The easiest changes to quantify were the
increase in felony drug prosecutions amounting to 750 cases
and resulted in a substantial increase in workload -
anywhere from 150 to 200 additional felony cases. The
agency would need two attorney positions and one staff
position to handle the anticipated increase in workload.
Co-Chair Wilson noted that the office was asking for fewer
positions than DOL. She asked if the reason was because
some of the cases were assigned to OPA and others to the
Public Defenders Agency. Mr. Stinson answered in the
affirmative. He detailed that OPA received cases when a
conflict of interest was determined between the public
defenders and client. He offered that some cases required a
substantial amount of investigation and carried an
estimated 25 percent conflict rate that varied depending on
the community.
10:32:22 AM
BETH GOLDSTEIN, ACTING PUBLIC DEFENDER, PUBLIC DEFENDER
AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference),
reviewed the new fiscal impact note from the Department of
Administration, Public Defender Agency, OMB Component
Number 1631. She repeated that the Public Defender Agency
(PDA) was requesting an increase primarily due to drug
offenses and increasing case load. She expounded that the
agency would not receive roughly 20 percent of the cases
due to ineligibility and conflicts. Therefore, based on
DOLs figures of an increase of 750 cases, PDA expected an
additional 600 cases. The agency used the standard set by
the American Bar Association of 150 felonies per year per
attorney that resulted in a request of 4 new attorneys and
4 support staff positions. She informed committee members
that the one to one ratio of attorney and staff was in
response to the agency currently lacking support staff and
was not operating on a one to one ratio. The request
included one additional staff in addition to the three
necessary to handle the caseload.
Co-Chair Wilson thanked the department for the information.
10:34:08 AM
KELLY HOWELL, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, addressed the new
fiscal impact note from the Department of Public Safety,
Statewide Support, OMB Component Number 527. She explained
that the cost increase was for all laboratory services due
to testing all sexual assault kits. The provisions were
found in Sections 35 through 38 of HB 20. The department
requested two additional Forensic Scientist III positions
that were necessary to address the increase in caseload.
Additionally, the crime lab needed to outsource testing of
sexual assault kits for the first year to account for the
time and resources needed to fully train two new forensic
scientists and maintain the workload. The total first year
costs were estimated at $555,124. The second and subsequent
year costs were estimated at $278,8 thousand.
Co-Chair Wilson asked how difficult it was to fill the
positions. Ms. Howell answered that the Crime Lab had
trouble filling the positions and had to recruit
nationwide. She deferred to the crime labs chief assistant
for further details.
DAVID KANARIS, ASSISTANT CHIEF, FORENSIC LABORATORIES,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), answered
that the lab was typically successful with nationwide
recruitments but still need to find candidates within the
state that met minimum qualifications but lacked any
experience. The state typically trained the new
inexperienced hires for one year. He elaborated that the
outsourcing costs were approximately $1,100 per kit times
288 kits and was budgeted based on the two positions
requested who would test roughly 72 kits each per year
totaling 144 kits plus the time it took to train the
analyst requiring the help of two experienced scientists,
which required another 144 kits to be outsourced.
10:37:56 AM
Co-Chair Wilson asked whether the lab had a plan to use an
out-of-state facility during the recruitment and training
stage of the two positions. She asked whether the scenario
was included in the outsourcing cost of $316.8 thousand.
Mr. Kanaris answered in the affirmative.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if there were other
crime labs outside of Anchorage. Mr. Kanaris answered that
no other full service crime labs existed outside of the
state lab. He added that the Anchorage Police Department
(APD) had a limited crime lab that performed fingerprint
analysis and worked with a firearms database.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard thought she recalled a
discussion about a lab in Fairbanks. Mr. Kanaris did not
believe there was a lab available in Fairbanks that
performed forensic analysis.
Representative Merrick asked if all the sexual assault kits
tested were entered into a database once the testing was
complete. If so, she wondered if the database provided an
automatic notification if there was a match to another
crime that had occurred in another location. Alternatively,
she wondered if the database user would have to search for
a potential match. Mr. Kanaris answered that if there were
probative findings on a case, if a DNA result was generally
good, the information was entered into the database. He
confirmed that when a new entry was made, the database was
proactively searched to identify potential matches with
historical data.
10:40:34 AM
Representative Carpenter referred to the $1,100 cost to
process each kit. He asked for a cost breakdown. Mr.
Kanaris replied that approximately $750 to $1000 was the
cost for testing the kit to generate the DNA profile. The
additional $100 was for the review of each case. The
process was very time consuming and was outsourced at a
cost of $100 per case.
Representative Carpenter asked about the task being done to
account for the $750 for testing. Mr. Kanaris replied that
the cost was primarily for salary, training, equipment,
consumables. Co-Chair Wilson asked for a cost breakdown.
She asked how much the same tests would cost to send out of
state. Mr. Kanaris asked Co-Chair Wilson to repeat the
question. Co-Chair Wilson complied. Mr. Kanaris would
follow up.
10:43:16 AM
Co-Chair Wilson pointed to an updated Department of Law
fiscal impact note. She noted the committee would ask
questions on the note at the afternoon meeting. She
reviewed the agenda for the 1:30 p.m. meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 20 NEW FISCAL NOTES ALL.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 20 |