Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/01/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Fy 17 Budget Overview: Dept. of Transportation & Public Facilities | |
| Fy 17 Budget Overview: Judiciary | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 256
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs, capitalizing funds, making
reappropriations, making supplemental appropriations,
and making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 257
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 255
"An Act making appropriations, including capital
appropriations, reappropriations, and other
appropriations; making appropriations to capitalize
funds; and providing for an effective date."
FY 17 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC
FACILITIES
FY 17 BUDGET OVERVIEW: JUDICIARY
^FY 17 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC
FACILITIES
1:33:23 PM
MARK LUIKEN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC FACILITIES, introduced the PowerPoint presentation:
"Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities:
Overview."
Commissioner Luiken scrolled to slide 2: "Overview":
· Mission/Core Services/Statutes
· Organizational Structure Overview
· FY2016 Budget Changes
· FY2017 Budget Overview
· Look Back Graphs
Commissioner Luiken turned to slide 3: "Our DOT&PF People:
Alaskans Serving Alaskans":
· Hilary Lindh
· South Coast Region Environmental Manager
· B.S. Biology and M.S. Conservation Ecology
· Born and raised in Juneau; returned with husband
5 years ago to raise daughter
· 13 years on U.S. National Ski Team; Olympic
Silver Medalist 1992 and World Champion in 1997;
inducted into U.S. Ski and Snowboard Hall of Fame
2005 and Alaska Sports Hall of Fame 2009
· In 4th year serving DOT&PF
· Hilary, with assistance from her staff, has
direct oversight and responsibility for the
environmental requirements of all projects
developed within the South Coast Region.
· Led by Hilary, the region's environmental section
provides support critical for projects that align
with DOT&PF core services to Maintain and Expand
Infrastructure.
· Hilary is the common thread to all region
projects and she instills teamwork, a strong work
ethic, and a positive attitude not only in the
region but across the state.
Commissioner Luiken emphasized the caliber of people
working within the department including Hilary Lindh who
ran the environmental section of the South Coast region.
She was the continuity for all of the environmental work
going on in the region through her leadership.
Commissioner Luiken slide 4: "Mission and Core Services."
"Keep Alaska Moving through service and
infrastructure."
• Operate Alaska's Transportation Infrastructure
• Cost per operation lane mile maintained
• Maintain Alaska's Transportation Infrastructure
• Actual maintenance cost per lane mile maintained
• Number of miles meeting goal
• Expand Alaska's Transportation Infrastructure
• Total dollars obligated vs total dollars planned to
be obligated
• Operate Marine Transportation Services
• Number of weeks of services/total cost of operation
Commissioner Luiken reported that over the last 9 months
the department examined the statutes that drove its actions
and its delivery of services. As a Result the department
had identified 4 core services which he reviewed. Under
each of the core services listed on the slide were examples
of the kind of measures used to evaluate the department's
performance. The hope of the department in evaluating its
performance was to provide the legislature a report that
was objective and data-driven concerning what the
department did to meet its core services.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if the report would include the
costs including operating, lane miles maintained, and
ridership. Commissioner Luiken responded that regarding the
Alaska Marine Highway system the annual report contained an
array of data including the cost to run each vessel,
passenger numbers, vehicle numbers, and the weeks of
service. The 2015 report had been released a week prior.
Co-Chair Thompson was also looking for data concerning
airport traffic for the more than 270 airports in Alaska.
1:38:35 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked about how lane miles were
compared and whether the same lane miles were being
measured yearly. He wondered if weather conditions and
other factors were considered when the departments made
comparisons. Commissioner Luiken responded that the
department could provide a macro look of the average cost
relating to lane miles. He suggested he could provide some
granularity about costs by region and by road. The
department had been collecting data to track performance
and costs.
Representative Kawasaki asked if there was a way to track
the number of cars being used on roads being used
infrequently. Commissioner Luiken responded that the
department had already applied the data, the annual average
daily traffic for all of the major roads maintained by the
state, to craft its budget. The department had used that
data along with road geometry data to make important
decisions in the current year. It was useful to normalize
the level of services the state provided and balance the
workload per employee across the maintenance and operations
system. The data was also used to identify the road
priority system, data published in September 2016. The data
would determine the expected level of winter road
maintenance service.
1:42:41 PM
Commissioner Luiken turned to slide 5: "Organization." He
highlighted the principle deputy commissioner, Steve
Hatter. There were two modal deputies that managed the
Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) and the aviation
system, and three regional directors. He continued to
highlight the key positions and duties within the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT).
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about "Everyday Lean."
Commissioner Luiken answered that it was a new initiative
instituted by the DOT based on the belief that the people
on the front line were the people who knew best as to how
to get the most out of delivering services and being the
most effective and efficient. The department had encouraged
its employees to communicate directly to him through the
Everyday Lean initiative. He reported having a website
where people could provide feedback about how to run more
efficiently. The website targeted maintenance and
operations but was available throughout the department. He
provided an example of a sand spreader guard. It was a
piece of angle iron that angled around the sand spreader to
prevent it from being damaged. Typically the state damaged
6 sand spreaders (valued at $5000 each) per season. Using
the inexpensive guard had the potential to save the state
about $30 thousand annually.
Co-Chair Thompson added that the commissioner should
arrange a means for receiving feedback from employees
anonymously.
1:47:27 PM
Representative Gara agreed with Co-Chair Thompson. He asked
about the maintenance of the haul road. He wondered if the
department had the ability to charge oil and gas users for
their portion of the maintenance costs of the haul road.
Commissioner Luiken relayed that Alaska had an example of
an industrial use road, the Klondike Highway. The state
charged mining ore trucks that ran heavy on the road
helping to defray maintenance costs. He believed that it
could be implemented for use on the haul road if the state
wanted to move in that direction. He mentioned that it was
the road that supplied the vast majority of the state's
income. The haul road started out as private road and was
transferred to the state with the understanding that the
state would operate and maintain it.
Representative Gara mentioned the state paying $20 million
per year. He did not want to charge tour busses or
individuals, but wanted to target major users from the oil
and gas industry. He wondered why the administration
thought it was appropriate for the state to subsidize the
road. Commissioner Luiken reported that currently the road
was a public road and it was the obligation of the state to
maintain it.
Co-Chair Thompson understood the question about the cost of
maintaining the haul road but noted the discussion would
need to be taken up at another time.
Representative Guttenberg relayed a whistle blower story
where each party called him about the other. Although he
did not want to put a damper on legitimate concerns, a
perspective was necessary when receiving feedback.
Representative Wilson believed that the oil industry had
offered to maintain the haul road, but the state wanted to
do so in order to keep it as a public road. She thought it
was possible to revisit the conversation with the industry.
She mentioned that every airport did not have landing fees
and wondered if the department was looking into that. She
also noted that she had received two lengthy documents on
striping the roads. She was glad the DOT was striping the
roads but did not need all of the accompanying documents.
Alternatively, she was willing to pull such information off
of the internet.
1:52:29 PM
Representative Gattis asked if they could currently use the
Everyday Lean program anonymously. Commissioner Luiken
responded affirmatively that employees could submit
suggestions anonymously. However, he relayed that the
majority of people making suggestions were very proud of
what they did.
Representative Gattis asked if the means of submitting
feedback was in the form of a software program or a drop
box. Commissioner Luiken stated that it was on an internet
site.
Representative Gattis wanted to clarify that employees
could connect anonymously. Commissioner Luiken responded
affirmatively.
Representative Gattis asked if Commissioner Luiken had been
able to provide the subcommittee co-chair with a list of
everything in order to be able to ferret out the
information. Commissioner Luiken responded that he would be
happy to send the information to the co-chairmen.
Co-Chair Thompson was unclear how much time the request
would demand.
Representative Gattis thought that by briefly looking at
them it would help to distinguish which would provide
savings.
Representative Munoz asked about a fee for the mining
trucks on the Klondike and why it would not be possible to
do the same on the haul road. Commissioner Luiken explained
that the ore trucks were running overweight. The state had
given them the ability to run overweight on the state's
road with the intent that a fee would be collected to
continue to maintain the road keeping it safe for use.
1:55:04 PM
Commissioner Luiken reviewed slide 6: "DOT&PF Assets":
· 3,125 Full-time positions
· Own and maintain 5,589 center line miles of
road/highways
· 79 Maintenance Stations
· 247 State Airports
· 2 International Airports
· 11 Ferries
· 35 Ferry Terminals
· 21 Harbors
· 813 State Owned Bridges
· 793 Facilities
· 7 Weigh Stations
Commissioner Luiken indicated that the map showed the
physical layout of the department. He drew attention to the
three colors that identified three regions: Northern,
Central, and South Coast Regions.
Representative Kawasaki asked about slide 6. He wondered if
there were duplicate municipal and privately owned airports
in some of the communities. Commissioner Luiken responded
that there were some and he could provide that information
to the committee.
Representative Gattis asked for the commissioner to
identify those communities on the road system with state-
owned runways.
Representative Gara asked about a public notice sent out a
few days prior regarding the leasing of 15 thousand square
feet to a flight seeing company in Seward for $100 per
month. He wondered if the department habitually leased out
department lands at submarket rates. Commissioner Luiken
responded that the land lease rates at rural airports were
well below fair-market-value. He added that the state was
in the process of getting assessments for all of the
state's airport lands. Afterwards, the department would
likely adjust the leasing rates accordingly.
Co-Chair Thompson thought the commissioner had made the
same statement in the previous year. He wondered where he
was in the process. He emphasized that 12 months had
passed. Commissioner Luiken would provide the information.
He added that the state had 247 airports.
Co-Chair Thompson was aware of the number. Commissioner
Luiken would be happy to provide the information to the
committee.
1:58:59 PM
Representative Gara commented that if he were writing the
law he would be more sympathetic to keeping air travel
rates down for rural Alaska. He wondered why the state had
not started with higher rates for a flight seeing business
in Seward. Commissioner Luiken believed that as recent as 4
or 5 years prior the department had started the process. He
indicated that it was still in process.
Commissioner Luiken advanced to slide 7: "Statutory
Requirements":
· AS 44.42 Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities
· AS 44.68.010 Use of State
· AS 44.68.210 Highway Equipment Working Capital Fund
· AS 35 Public Buildings, Works, and Improvements
· AS 19 Highways and Ferries
· AS 19.10 State Highway System
· AS 19.10.300 Commercial Motor Vehicle Requirements
· AS 19.25 Utilities, Advertising, Encroachment and
Memorials
· AS 19.65 Alaska Marine Highway System
· AS 19.65.050 Alaska Marine Highway System Fund and
Budget
· AS 19.75 Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority
· AS 2 Aeronautics
Commissioner Luiken explained that the slide showed the
statues that drove what the department was responsible for
and the core services it provided.
2:00:08 PM
MARY SIROKY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, turned
to slide 8: "Commissioner's Office":
Commissioner's Office - Marc Luiken, Commissioner
· 13 full
· .4% of FY2017 budget request
· $2,190.1 (UGF $743.0)
· Department leadership and contracting and appeals
· Challenges
· Operating and maintaining a continually growing
transportation infrastructure with reduced
operating resources
· Transitioning the culture at all levels of the
department to make decisions using performance
measures
· An increase in the number and complication of
federal reporting requirements
· Recruitment and retention of qualified operators,
mechanics and tradesmen in rural Alaska
· Researching opportunities to divest or share
responsibilities to operate and maintain
transportation infrastructure where it makes
sense
Ms. Siroky highlighted that the commissioner eliminated a
section under his responsibility. The director position was
eliminated and the rest of the tasks were moved throughout
the department. The tasks for the director were assumed by
the new regional director for South Coast Region.
Ms. Siroky explained her division on slide 9:
"Administrative Services Division Program Development
Division":
Administrative Services Division -Mary Siroky, Director
· 92 full
· 2.8% of FY2017 budget request
· $16,546.3 (UGF $2,646.3)
· Finance, budget, human resources, procurement,
internal review, equal employment and civil rights
· Challenges
· Budget reductions
· Implementation of the new accounting system
· Increased federal financial reporting
requirements
Program Development - Mike Vigue, Director
· 64 full
· 1.4% of FY2017 budget request
· $8,552.6 (UGF $520.2)
· Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP),
federal
transportation plan, capital budget, Strategic Highway
Safety Plan, Alaska Highway Safety Office, community
transit program
Challenges
· Consolidating planning functions to gain efficiencies
· Implementation of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act
Ms. Siroky pointed out that the Program Development
Division was consolidating planners. In the budget detail
it showed that the regional planning positions were moving
into program development. It would place all of the people
in positions doing the long-range transportation plans as
well as the department's Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), and capital budgets in one
location with one focus.
Ms. Siroky explained slide 10: "Statewide Design and
Engineering Services". She explained that the division did
a large amount of federal reporting for the state. The
state received over $500 million from the federal
government. The state was required to do a significant
amount of reporting using certain accounting procedures.
The division also actively worked with the state's
congressional delegation regarding new federal programs
making sure a one-size-fits-all approach was not used in
the case of Alaska. The division was also responsible for
bridge design, bridge maintenance, and bridge construction
having been consolidated into one organization for
efficiency.
Ms. Siroky scrolled to slide 11: "Statewide Aviation":
John Binder, Deputy Commissioner
· 31 full
· .7% of FY2017 budget request
· $4,070.0 (UGF $301.6)
· Aviation leasing, system planning, capital program
management, safety & security compliance, carrier
compliance
Challenges
· Increasing federal regulations
· Lack of geospatial information data
· Land
· Airport obstructions
· Wildlife management
· Efficiently organizing structure to meet emerging
aviation issues in a consistent and standardized
manner statewide
Ms. Siroky emphasized the small size of the division and
the small amount of unrestricted general funds (UGF) in the
budget. She reported that the division was consolidating
moving the statewide safety officers for the airports under
the Division of Statewide Aviation. It would provide a
standard look and procedure going forward to regulate the
state's rural airports and certified Part 139 airports.
Representative Wilson asked about why the state had landing
fees at some airports while others did not. She also
wondered if it would be standardized for all Alaska
airports. Ms. Siroky responded that the state did not
collect lading fees at any state-owned and operated rural
airports. The state had landing fees at the international
airports which were set up to operate as self-supporting
enterprise organizations.
Representative Wilson suggested applying the concept of
self-supporting to all of Alaska's airports. She thought
the international airports were great examples.
Commissioner Luiken responded that the department had
proposed introducing landing fees at its Part 139 airports.
The division had approached the Aviation Advisory Board
(AAB) and spent a good portion of the summer working with
them to determine the fairest distribution of revenue
generation for the entire system. The Aviation Advisory
Board ultimately recommended an increase in the aviation
fuel tax and the jet fuel tax charged around the state
rather than instituting landing fees.
2:05:10 PM
Representative Wilson thought it remained inequitable. She
wondered if a decision could be made by the commissioner
rather than the AAB.
Co-Chair Thompson would look into Representative Wilson's
question and provide the information.
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke as a pilot and advocate of general
aviation that nationally it had been decided that the way
to support aviation infrastructure was by assessing fees
generated through sales of aviation fuel. Pilots in Alaska
paid a fee per gallon which went into the UGF and
subsequently paid for expenses associated with rural
airports. He believed there was a federal fee associated.
He further observed that commercial airports such as the
Ted Stevens International Airport in Anchorage was where
the landing fees were charged. However, airports in rural
Alaska did not have landing fees. It was important to
maintain rural airports for reasons of safety, access, and
quality of life.
Co-Chair Thompson mentioned that there was a federal
regulation requiring any taxes collected through airports
to be used on airports rather than going into the UGF.
Representative Kawasaki thought there had been a plan to
begin charging a landing fee at Deadhorse. He asked for
additional information. Commissioner Luiken explained that
the reason the state had the discussion a year prior was
due to the industry and certain air carriers wanting
expanded airport operation hours. The state's response was
that if the airport expanded and brought on more people
another revenue source would be needed, hence the idea of
landing fees. Since that time the price of oil had
plummeted. The expanded hour plans had not materialized.
Alaska Airlines had continued to ask for slightly expanded
operating hours. The department was looking at finding a
way to defray the costs of the extended hours.
2:09:01 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked if hours had already expanded
at Deadhorse and whether the state was recouping any new
revenues. Commissioner Luiken stated that the department
was continuing to negotiate with Alaska Airlines to recoup
funds.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the hours of operation had
expanded. Commissioner Luiken would have to get back to the
representative about what had been done in Deadhorse.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if Commissioner Luiken knew whether
the hours had been expanded. Commissioner Luiken did not
know the answer.
Co-Chair Thompson asked the commissioner to get the
information to his office.
Representative Gattis remarked that landing fees in
uncontrolled airports would be difficult to capture.
Co-Chair Thompson agreed that no one would be present to
collect the information.
Representative Gattis thought it would be tough to track.
Representative Munoz asked if the state was paying to
maintain the 247 airports around Alaska. Commissioner
Luiken responded in the affirmative.
Representative Munoz wondered why the state maintained some
airports and not others such as municipally owned airports.
Co-Chair Thompson thought it was due to public safety. Ms.
Siroky responded that she did not know the reason for
specific communities taking over and managing certain
airports. The communities of Juneau, Kenai, and Homer took
over their airports and set their own landing fees.
Aviation taxes were also rebated back to the communities to
be spent at their airports.
Representative Munoz would follow-up further at a later
time.
Representative Gara thought there was a significant amount
of money on the table. He asked if the state was
recuperating its operations and maintenance costs at the
Deadhorse airport. Ms. Siroky responded that a good portion
of the operating costs were recuperated through state lease
fees at the Deadhorse airport.
Representative Gara asked for her to submit a written
figure of "a good portion." Commissioner Luiken responded
that the department would supply the exact numbers.
2:12:21 PM
Ms. Siroky advanced to slide 13: "Statewide Equipment
Fleet." She reported that the Division of State Equipment
Fleet was responsible for providing services to all of the
departments within the executive branch. The division
handled contracting, maintenance, disposal, and purchasing.
She added that it also managed all of the credit cards
making sure the state recuperated its taxes charged on the
cards. The division was streamlining systems and taking
steps towards uniformity of the fleet.
Ms. Siroky scrolled to slide 14: "Measurement Standards and
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement." She relayed that the
division issued overweight permits, managed road closures,
and worked closely with the commercial trucking industry to
ensure safety. The division also validated the measuring
devises throughout the state to ensure the consumer was
getting what they paid for.
Representative Gattis wondered if she was the only member
with slide 12 in her packet.
Ms. Siroky missed the slide. She reported on slide 12:
"Information Systems and Services Division." She reported
that the division was fairly new and was established in FY
16 with consolidation in mind. All of the department's
information technology positions were brought into 1
division. She reported seeing good results from the change.
She relayed that the batching system was narrowed down to
one system which included the international airports. The
division was standardizing equipment purchases,
streamlining certain processes, and establishing a
centralized help desk.
Co-Chair Thompson asked her to clarify the budget for the
division highlighting the UGF spend. Ms. Siroky explained
that the Division of Information Systems and Services
received a percentage of international airport funds. She
would have to supply the exact figure later.
Representative Gattis suggested that, as the chairman of
the finance subcommittee for the Department of
Administration (DOA), other departments were also
consolidating. She thought the division within the DOT
reflected a duplication of services and stretched across
bureaucracy. She thought the duplication was unnecessary
and an area in which the state could look to save. She
suggested getting together with the chair of the finance
subcommittee for the DOT to look for additional savings.
2:17:06 PM
Ms. Siroky relayed that the DOT was actively participating
with DOA to look at shared services. She mentioned the
massive amount of federal reporting requirements involving
technology.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that Representative Gattis had
provided him a written list of questions realizing the
limited time left in the meeting. He would provide a copy
to the DOT. He acknowledged the importance of getting
member questions answered and that the amount of money
being discussed was considerable. He encouraged other
members to submit additional questions on the subject to
his staff.
Ms. Siroky advanced to slide 15: "Statewide Public
Facilities." She highlighted that the Division of Statewide
Public Facilities performed vertical construction for a
large portion of the state and provided shared services. It
also performed major maintenance projects and was in charge
of the Alaska Energy Savings Performance Program. The
pictures reflected a lighting upgrade that was done at the
Mount Edgecombe gym. The lighting was improved dramatically
and electric costs decreased.
Ms. Siroky explained slide 16: "AK International Airport
System (AIAS)." She reported the cargo activity in FY 15
increased by about 9.5 percent and passenger activity
increased as well by about 4.4 percent.
Ms. Siroky advanced to slide 17: "Alaska Marine Highway
System." She relayed that the budget for the AMHS reflected
a large portion in UGF dollars. Although the department had
worked hard to reduce UGF dollars in all of its divisions,
the AMHS still required a significant amount of UGF. The
division brought in about $54 million in revenues in the
previous year and carried about 309 thousand passengers,
106 thousand vehicles, and revenues equaled about 33
percent of the total cost - an increase of about 3 percent.
Ms. Siroky moved to slide 18: "Southcoast Region." She
explained that the regional division was put into place in
the FY 16 budget combining as many of the marine elements
and responsibilities under one organizational unit. The
division's budget grew due to having taken on new
responsibilities. Mr. Mike Coffey was the new regional
director. He had previously held a position in the
commissioner's office. He brought his statewide
transportation and maintenance responsibilities with him in
order to eliminate an executive level position out of the
commissioner's office.
Ms. Siroky turned to slide 19: "Central Region." She
relayed that Mr. David Kemp was the new regional director.
Previously he managed the Division of Statewide Public
Facilities. He brought his prior responsibilities with him
to his position eliminating a high level position in the
department. Throughout the different regional units there
was a large portion of UGF in their budgets.
2:21:48 PM
Ms. Siroky continued to slide 20: "Northern Region." The
Northern Region unit included the Rylie Creek Bridge.
Ms. Siroky pointed to slide 21: "Dalton Highway Aufeis
Flooding." She reported that the road was closed for 28
days in the prior year. There were a number of partners
that were brought together to solve the problem. The
contractors were partners in resolving the flooding. There
were 2 state disaster declarations which would hopefully be
paid for with federal dollars. She noted that the picture
on the bottom left showed the embankment being raised about
10 feet to avoid the same kind of flooding in the future.
The department was able to adjust some of the road projects
already in place increasing the height of the embankments
adding only a small amount of funding.
Ms. Siroky reviewed slide 22: "FY2016: $34.6M UGF
Reduction." She reported a $34.6 million UGF reduction. She
relayed that $15.3 million UGF came out of the highways and
aviation areas and eliminated 29 position control numbers
(PCNs). She also conveyed that the AMHS had a reduction of
$11.1 million UGF and eliminated 32 PCNs. The support
services, most of the other sections and divisions, took a
reduction of $8.2 million UGF and eliminated 34 PCNs. She
emphasized that the AMHS and Highways and Aviation made up
approximately 96 percent of the department's total UGF
budget. The reduction of $8.2 million UGF came from 4
percent of the department. The department was being
diligent in reducing its UGF spend. She also pointed out
that the department could not use capital dollars for all
of its maintenance and operation activities but did so
wherever possible. The department also pushed federal
funding partners to give the department an extremely
liberal interpretation of how money could be used for
preventative maintenance of Alaska's airport and highway
systems.
Ms. Siroky turned to slide 23: "FY2017 Unrestricted General
Fund (UGF) Broken out by Appropriation Further Broken out
by Personal Services and Support Lines." She thought the
graph was a clear demonstration of where the UGF was within
the department. She highlighted the yellow representing the
personal services category and the green depicting the
support lines. The largest portion of UGF were in the
maintenance and operations of facilities, in the highways
and aviation areas, and the AMHS. She noted a small amount
in the areas of administration and support including the
regional directors' offices, the program development
division, the information systems and services division,
and the commissioner's office. There was also a very small
amount of UGF within the Division of Design, Engineering,
and Construction.
2:26:19 PM
Representative Gattis mentioned the light winter in the
previous year and the current mild winter. She wondered if
there was a chart that showed the savings in fuel costs due
to the most recent temperate climate in the winter months
and where the savings was spent. Ms. Siroky answered that
the department built its budget based on normal winter
maintenance activity. She furthered that when winters were
mild remaining funds would be spent in the following spring
to repair pot holes and brushing. Spring was the "shock
absorber." If the state had a heavy winter, it would spend
more of its resources on winter demands and curtail
spending in the spring.
Representative Gattis noted the current mild winter, the
second in a row, and the reduction in the cost of fuel. She
explained that in her business when the price of fuel was
down, her profit margins went up. She concluded that the
state was experiencing some savings because the price of
fuel was down. She wanted to know the amount of savings and
where it was reflected in the department's budget. She
remarked that the department had savings somewhere. She
commented that when potholes were filled the department was
filling them during rush hour traffic. She noted it was a
sore point. She reiterated her question about where the
savings could be found.
Ms. Siroky replied that in terms of fuel the department no
longer received a fuel trigger and the price of fuel in
rural Alaska had not decreased. Typically the state paid
over $10 per gallon in Nome and Kotzebue. The state had
more facilities online than the department had ever been
given a budget. She continued to explain that as the state
expanded its road system it installed additional snow
removal equipment to maintain them. In order to reduce wear
and tear of $250 thousand pieces of equipment heated
storage was required. Therefore, she did not believe the
state would see much savings in terms of fuel. She spoke to
the use of chemicals at airports and the correct breaking
capacity. She stressed that the department worked its tail
off to be as efficient as possible and to provide the
public with the best service possible.
2:30:29 PM
Ms. Siroky turned to slide 24: "DOT and PF Unrestricted
General Fund by RDU." She explained that the chart was
another representation of where UGF could be found within
the department.
She moved to slide 25: "Summary of FY2017 Governor's
Proposed: Budget Development." She summarized that the
department was proposing a $591,689 [million] budget.
Reductions were primarily in Highways and Aviation and the
AMHS totaling about $18.4 million of which $12 million was
UGF.
She addressed slide 26: "FY2017 Governor's Proposed:
Operating Budget All Funding Sources." The slide showed all
of the operating budget funding sources. The largest piece
of pie represented UGF in red. The green piece of the pie
related to capital improvement projects. There was a
variety of other funding sources that the department wanted
to maximize as much as possible.
Ms. Siroky addressed slide 27: "FY2017 Governor's Proposed:
UGF Operating Budget by Allocation." She conveyed that the
UGF operating budget primarily supported the AMHS,
highways, aviation, and facilities.
Ms. Siroky scrolled to the Legislative Finance Division
graph on slide 28: "Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities Share of Total Agency Operations (GF Only) ($
Thousands)." It showed the DOT share of total agency
operations. She indicated the yellow boxes showed how the
fuel trigger impacted the department. The department was
reaching the size it was in FY 10 or FY 11.
Ms. Siroky addressed salary adjustments and personal
services costs on slide 29: "Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities Salary Adjustment Increases and
Personal Services Costs (All Funds) ($ Thousands)." The
slide showed $73 million of contractual salary increases.
If those increases were not taken into account the
department's personal services funding would be down about
$40 million.
Ms. Siroky advanced to slide 30: "Appropriations within the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (GF
Only) ($ Thousands)." The slide showed that the department
had not only focused on reductions in the areas of the AMHS
and the Highways, Aviation, and Facilities areas. It had
also looked to reductions in all areas of UGF.
Ms. Siroky turned to slide 31: "Appropriations within the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (All
Funds) ($ Thousands)." She explained the slide reflected
that the downturn in all fund sources was primarily in the
Highways and Aviation component and the AMHS. However, it
did not reflect certain changes within the organization.
For example the blue line representing administration and
support showed a steady growth but was a result of
centralizing activities.
Ms. Siroky moved to slide 32: "FY2017 Proposed Capital
Budget." The department's proposed capital budget was $860
million of federal receipts. She highlighted that a variety
of other funding sources were shown on the slide. She asked
if there were any questions from the committee.
2:34:24 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler pointed to growing infrastructure for
transportation. He wondered if it equated to expanding lane
miles or additional airports or more sea ports. Ms. Siroky
replied that over the last ten years the department had
been expanding runway safety areas at airports. She
elaborated that adding a shoulder to a road or a bike lane
was considered an increase to the state's infrastructure
because it had to be maintained and was a budgetary
increase. The department was currently focusing its
attention on heavy maintenance but did a fair amount of
expansion such as intersections or round-a-bouts.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if there was a reduction of lines.
He also reported that whenever the department redid a road
in a community, the community was then required to take
over the maintenance of that road. He indicated that the
City of Fairbanks had taken over all of Illinois Street
including the snow removal and minor maintenance on the 2
bridges across the Chena River. He suggested that the
department had actually reduced the mileage it maintained
in some cases. Ms. Siroky reported that when the state
upgraded a road it looked to give the road to the
municipality. Often times it made more sense.
Co-Chair Thompson replied that the way it had been
explained was that if a municipality wanted a road redone
it would have to take over the maintenance. He stated that
it was not a voluntary situation.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked Ms. Siroky for her to explain the
fuel trigger mechanism. Ms. Siroky responded that when oil
reached above $70 per barrel a formula was applied and the
agencies received a distribution of fuel trigger money. It
was originally set up because the price of oil was
fluctuating so much in the early 2000's. The legislature
did not want the fuel to be a continuing build-up of the
base. The state would not be receiving any fuel trigger
money in the current year.
Representative Gara asked about the 200 mile stretch
between Talkeetna and Cooper Landing. He relayed that there
used to be a number of safety signs that directed drivers
with 5 or more cars behind them to pull over. He estimated
seeing between 2 or less of those signs when he drove the
route. He wondered why the signs were no longer present.
Ms. Siroky could not remember the answer to the frequently
asked question.
Representative Gara requested that the signs be
redisplayed, as the stretch was one of the most dangerous
in Alaska. Commissioner Luiken believed there were more
than 2 signs. He also reported that several additional
pull-outs were installed. However, it was really up to the
public to adhere to the signs.
Representative Gara wanted the official count. He suggested
that the pullouts were better marked. Commissioner Luiken
stated that he would get back with the number of signs
currently displayed.
Vice-Chair Saddler stated that his constituent had
frequently seen a sign indicating a work safety zone with
double fine penalties. He wondered if it was possible to
make the signs conditional based on workers being present.
He wondered about federal and state requirements.
Commissioner Luiken was aware that for certain portions of
the Seward, Glenn, and Sterling highways there were
designated safety zones. Within those safety zones, whether
there was construction or not, there were double fines.
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered if it was possible to make the
signs conditional. Commissioner Luiken believed so but
would double check.
Co-Chair Thompson encouraged members to submit any written
questions. He reported that there would be a DOT Finance
Subcommittee meeting at 7:00 a.m. on Thursday and invite
people to attend.
2:42:18 PM
AT EASE
2:49:56 PM
RECONVENED
^FY 17 BUDGET OVERVIEW: JUDICIARY
2:50:06 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, introduced the PowerPoint presentation: "FY 17
Alaska Court System Overview."
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 2: "Mission Statement":
Mission Statement
The mission of the Alaska Court System is to provide
an accessible and impartial forum for the just
resolution of all cases that come before it, and to
decide such cases in accordance with the law,
expeditiously and with integrity.
Mr. Wooliver explained the core function of Judiciary was
to resolve cases that came to the court in the best way
possible. The challenge of the court system was to keep an
eye on the mission statement while working with the new
budget reality.
Mr. Wooliver discussed slide 3: "Four Levels of Courts." He
stated that there were four levels of the court. The first
was the Supreme Court that handled all civil appeals and
also handled some criminal appeals but at the court's
election. Next was the Court of Appeals, made up of three
judges, which handled criminal appeals exclusively. He
continued that the trial court was made up of Superior
Courts, courts of general jurisdiction hearing everything
from family law cases to murder cases and all of the child-
in-need-of-aid cases. Lastly, there were district courts,
courts of limited jurisdiction. They heard misdemeanor
crimes, personal lawsuits under $100 thousand, and domestic
violence restraining orders, for example. District courts
were where all minor offenses were filed.
Representative Wilson had heard talk about a family court
and whether a family court specializing in cases such as
divorce would save the state money. She wondered whether
the option had been considered.
Mr. Wooliver answered that the only court with enough
judges to divide the work was in Anchorage. Anchorage had
five Superior Court judges that just handled criminal
cases. The remaining judges handled civil cases. The
trouble with dividing up caseloads in smaller courts was
that the state did not have enough judges to do so. Parties
had a right to bump judges. It was possible to run out of
judges when that right was exercised once or twice. There
was talk every once in a while about having the type of
specialty Representative Wilson was suggesting. However,
other types of specialties cropped up as well. He recalled
talk about having judges that were very scientifically
literate or judges who were very literate regarding
business organizations. In the end, the model the state had
(the only one he felt the state could have with its number
of judges), worked best because most judges handled all
types of cases. Training became an essential issue for
judges because of the model the state had in place. He
reported that Judiciary would be cutting back on training
due to budget constraints and would be discussing the topic
further later in the presentation. He added that cutting
back on training would not be a sustainable option because
judges needed constant training particularly in the areas
of family law. The laws changed and thinking changed over
time.
Co-Chair Thompson commented that many people were in prison
waiting for a pre-trial conference for extended periods of
time. He wondered what might be causing the hang up. Mr.
Wooliver responded that there were a number of things that
kept people in jail. One problem could be that the bail was
set too high. Another was the requirement of a third-party
custodian. He mentioned that the criminal justice working
commission was addressing the issue of the huge pre-trial
population within the Department of Corrections (DOC). He
believed that there was a bill in the works that included
significant reforms to the bail statutes.
2:55:14 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how the number of judges was
determined. He wondered if it was set in statute or if a
population formula was used. Mr. Wooliver stated that the
number of Superior Court judges was set in statute. The
number of District Court judges was not set in statue but
the court addressed the legislature yearly with a request
for funding to increase District Court positions. Although
Judiciary had the authority to create new posts, it did not
have the revenue to do so.
Mr. Wooliver continued to slide 4: "Court System Non-
Judicial Employees." While he acknowledged the role of
judges, he pointed out that it took significant staff to
support them in doing their job. There were people that
took in all of the court filings, dealt with the public,
managed cases, moved files, and set court schedules. There
was also administrative staff responsible for finances,
human resources, computer services, and facilities.
Representative Gara understood cutting training to save
money. He noted that one of the areas that had been a
bright spot in the court system was the training of
magistrates and masters on how to deal with children's
cases in order to ensure more successful outcomes. He
wondered if such training was going to be cut.
Mr. Wooliver replied that Judiciary planned to cut one day
of magistrate training, although he was unclear what
curriculum would be deleted. Also, there would be one less
day of clerical training. The number of annual judicial
conferences would be reduced from two to one and a law
clerk training would be eliminated. He added that there
were some areas that were critical for training. He also
mentioned another way to save would be to avoid bringing
presenters from outside to the conferences but rather rely
on the expertise already within Alaska.
2:58:33 PM
Representative Gattis was wondering about the possibility
of shared internet technologies (IT) services with the
other agencies.
Mr. Wooliver responded that the court system used to be
more closely affiliate with Enterprise Technology Services
(ETS). However, when Judiciary was only 1.2 percent of the
budget it was difficult to get its priorities to the top of
ETS's list. The court could do its work much better when it
was in charge of its own IT services rather than being in
the que of a much larger organization. It was not to say
that Judiciary did not work with the IT people in the other
agencies. There was a "Magic Committee" that made sure that
the agencies could speak to each other via their technology
systems. Judiciary worked with the DOC and Department of
Public Safety (DPS) on several kinds of technology
projects. However, he concluded that Judiciary needed to be
in charge of its employees and its priorities. The
judiciary branch would not relish becoming part of the
executive branch's technology efforts.
Representative Guttenberg asked about law enforcement that
moved criminals back and forth and whether they fell under
the Judiciary branch. Mr. Wooliver explained that the
Alaska State Troopers provided some of the judicial
services but did not fall under Judiciary.
Mr. Wooliver scrolled to slide 5: "Factors Impacting
Workloads." The items influencing the types of cases that
came to the court included population, police, economy, and
other. As population grew judicial resources grew, and as
population shrank judicial resources shrank. He explained
that if a city received a federal grant and could increase
the number of police officers and prosecutors, the state
might see an increase in criminal cases being filed
irrespective of population and crime rates. Conversely,
cuts in those areas might result in fewer cases being
filed. He continued that, in general, people with jobs were
less likely to get in trouble than people without jobs. He
asserted that things like the unemployment rate could have
an indirect effect on the court's workload.
Mr. Wooliver pointed to slide 6: "Trial Court Caseloads -
FY 15." The workload for the Superior Court was up by 3
percent from the prior year. The District Court workload
was up 2 percent. In general, the caseloads were not
changing much, as they were only up slightly from the
previous year.
Mr. Wooliver discussed the pie chart on slide 7: "FY 15
Trial Court Case Filings: Superior & District Courts
Combined." He noted that the largest part of the case
filings had to do with minor offenses such as traffic
offenses and fish and game violations.
3:03:14 PM
Mr. Wooliver reviewed the pie chart on slide 8: "FY 15
Superior Court Case Filings." He noted that the caseload in
Superior Court was primarily made up of felony filings (28
percent), probate filings (26 percent), and domestic
relations cases (21 percent). The interesting part was the
probate number which consisted of wills, guardianships, and
conservatorships. He relayed that "Baby Boomers" were aging
to over 65 becoming a larger percentage of the population
which resulted in more probate cases in court. It was not
just an increase in numbers, but an increase in focus as
well. He conveyed that several years ago the legislature
passed a bill requiring the licensing of professional
guardians because of it becoming a bigger issue as the
population aged. A few years ago the legislature passed a
bill that allowed a person to get a financial abuse
protective order when it looked like a senior was being
taken advantage of regarding their money. The court
established the Elder Law Task Force chaired by Justice
Winfree. Mr. Wooliver indicated he sat on the task force as
well. The focus of the task force was to figure out how the
court could internally do a better job with guardianships
and conservatorships.
Vice-Chair Saddler mentioned that much of the expenses of
the foster care system were masked in other departments. He
wondered how much of the expenses in the court system were
associated with foster care adoptions and prosecutions that
were not reimbursed. Mr. Wooliver reported that the court
system just had cases and did not give money back. The
number of Child-in-need-of-aid cases had grown
significantly over the past few years, about an increase of
50 percent in case filings. He reported that it would be
difficult to figure cost because the court did not have a
cost-per-case amount in the court system. Instead, the
system had an overhead amount.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for a percentage. Mr. Wooliver
responded about 11 percent of the Superior Court caseload.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how many were related to foster
care. Mr. Wooliver would try to find a better number.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for the probate caseload
attributable to foster care. Mr. Wooliver would try to find
the information.
Representative Wilson asked about the 2571 cases. Mr.
Wooliver answered that the number of cases represented the
number of cases filed.
Representative Wilson asked about the delinquency number.
Mr. Wooliver responded that there were 883 juvenile
delinquency cases brought to the Division of Juvenile
Justice involving crimes committed by minors. Although a
minor might also be a child in need of aid, the case type
was completely separate and unrelated.
3:08:28 PM
Representative Wilson suggested that there was no way to
track the number of children within the categories because
the same child could be involved in more than one type of
case. Mr. Wooliver agreed. He spoke of an earlier testifier
on a previous day who confirmed a child could be involved
in multiple types of cases. The court system's statistics
would not show such information.
Representative Gara referred to Mr. Wooliver's earlier
statement that child-in-need-of-aid cases had gone up 50
percent in the previous few years. He wondered if it
increased its costs. He thought the judges just absorbed
the cases with the same amount of staff.
Mr. Wooliver replied that Representative Gara was correct.
He elaborated that the court system had also seen some
reductions. For instance, the amount of probate cases were
up and delinquency cases were down. In the prior 2 years
the family law cases had decreased. He cited a few more
statistics but concluded Judiciary cases were relatively
flat. The only time the courts received more resources was
when a request was submitted to the legislature.
Mr. Wooliver moved on to slide 9: "FY 15 District Court
Case Filings." He highlighted that the District Court
handled minor offenses such as traffic tickets and
misdemeanors.
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 10: "Criminal Jury Trials FY
13 - FY 16." He mentioned that in the past few years there
had been a dramatic increase in trial rates. However, that
had come to a screeching halt. Judiciary's trial rates for
FY 15 were down slightly and for the first half of FY 16
they were down substantially. The attorneys and parties
determined whether a case went to trial rather than the
court system. He explained that when the trial rate went up
so did the state's costs because the state paid jury fees
and jury travel in rural areas. In the current year there
was a savings because the number of trials were down.
Mr. Wooliver scrolled to the pie chart on slide 11: "FY 16
State of Alaska Funding - All Sources." The pie
demonstrated that Judiciary was only a small percentage of
the overall state budget, about 1.4 percent of the "All
Sources" total and about 2.2 percent of the UGF total.
Mr. Wooliver pointed to slide 12: " Alaska Court System FY
16 Operating Budget Appropriation: All Fund Types." The pie
depicted how the court system spent its money. Most of the
branch's costs were associated with the trial courts, the
Superior Court and the District Court. The majority of
judges and employees worked within those courts.
Mr. Wooliver discussed slide 13: "Breakdown of FY 16
Funding (GF)." He surmised that the slide was another way
of accounting for how Judiciary spent its funding. The
majority of the agency's funding went towards personnel.
The only other area that took a large chunk of funding went
towards services associated with facilities contracts,
leases, and utilities.
Mr. Wooliver displayed slide 14: "Funding Changes FY 07 to
FY 17: Personal Services." He reported that looking back
over the previous 10 years, the largest factors impacting
the agency's budget was the general salary adjustments that
the legislature approved and the hiring of 8 new Superior
Court judges and 3 new District Court judges.
Mr. Wooliver reviewed slide 15: "Funding Changes FY 07 to
FY 17: Services." He explained that lease expenses had
increased as well as costs for software and bandwidth. He
also mentioned that Therapeutic Courts had been placed into
Judiciary's budget a number of years ago.
3:13:10 PM
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 16: "Judiciary: Salary
Adjustment Increases and Personal Services Costs: All
Funds." He explained that the red bars represented the
raises that had been approved each year.
Representative Wilson asked if Judiciary was looking to
absorb the red bar for the following year. Mr. Wooliver was
not anticipating the funding and would be eating the cost
for pay raises.
Representative Wilson wanted the information on record.
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 17: "Judiciary
Appropriations: GF Only." The graph was another look at the
overall spending for Judiciary appropriations. The agency
used to be at about 2.07 percent and was currently at 2.22
percent of overall state spending in UGF.
Mr. Wooliver scrolled to slide 18: "Judiciary's Share of
Total Agency Operations: GF Only." He reported that
following the drop in oil prices in the previous year the
agency submitted its budget request, got rid of its
increments, and asked for a $3.4 million reduction which
the legislature approved.
Mr. Wooliver pointed to slide 19: "FY 15 to FY 16 Budget
Change." In the end, $2.2 million was added for the cost of
pay raises. However, the $2.2 million increase came with a
new expense of $2.2 million. Judiciary was still managing a
$3.4 million cut to the budget. There were a number of ways
Judiciary was managing the reduction including minimizing
supply expenditures. The department no longer replaced
computers unless it was absolutely necessary and minimized
travel. The department did not approve much travel and
placed a cap on travel of $2000. He provided an example of
traveling to a conference and having to reimburse the state
$158 because his costs had exceeded $2000 by that amount.
He noted reluctance to limit training. However, conferences
were expensive and it was costly to bring people to
Anchorage. Reducing training was not a sustainable option
and the agency would beef up its training once the budget
picture improved.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to slide 19 and asked if the
reduction of $1.4 from FY 15 to FY 16 was roughly 1 percent
- excluding the Cost-Of-Living Adjustment (COLA). Mr.
Wooliver replied that it was just over 1 percent. He
furthered that Judiciary was still left with a $2.4 million
cost to the pay raise. The agency would have to come up
with $3.8 million in savings under the budget being
considered.
Mr. Wooliver discussed slide 20: "FY 16 Budget Management."
He reiterated that the largest portion of the budget went
towards personal services which was where savings had to be
found. He suggested there was a 4-part way to get to the
reductions.
3:17:23 PM
Mr. Wooliver continued to discuss budget management on
slide 21: "FY 16 Budget Management (cont.)." The department
was not laying people off and hoped not to through FY 17.
One way to reduce costs was to have mandatory leave without
pay (LWOP). There had been 2 such days; the day after
Thanksgiving and the day before Christmas. There were 3
more days scheduled for the spring. If the department
stayed on track with some of the other savings not all 3
days would necessarily be needed. Another thing the
department was doing was leaving vacant positions unfilled.
However, employees could move between positions leaving a
different position vacant. In some cases the approval of
the administrative director could be issued to fill a
position. Through that effort there were 35 fewer jobs in
the court system than there had been in the prior year. If
a position was refilled it had to be vacant for a certain
period time. There had always been a 30 day vacancy
requirement. Currently, it was between 45 to 90 days
depending on the position and the court location which
saved the agency a fair amount. Another idea regarding LWOP
came about when some employees suggested voluntary leave
without pay or voluntary salary reductions. Thus far, over
300 court employees, including judges, took voluntary LWOP,
waived the 2.5 pay raise, or took a voluntary salary
reduction. People did not want to see their colleagues laid
off. The department hoped to be able to find enough savings
to avoid having the 3 days of closures in the spring.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the budget that was passed
in the previous year out of the finance subcommittee had 4
days of mandatory LWOP. Mr. Wooliver relayed that at the
time up to 6 days were contemplated.
Representative Kawasaki asked Mr. Wooliver to provide any
anecdotal information about the core closure dates in terms
of impacting services. Mr. Wooliver was unsure. However,
the department chose certain days that it thought would be
least impactful to operations. He had not heard of any
impacts and plenty of notice was given to employees. The 3
days proposed for the spring had already been announced by
the chief justice in the prior month of November or
December to avoid trials being scheduled on those days.
Representative Gara asked about LWOP. He wondered how money
was saved with LWOP for salaried employees. Mr. Wooliver
responded that his own pay was docked for each day.
3:23:09 PM
Mr. Wooliver reviewed slide 22: "FY 16 - Other Budget
Measures." The department did not just cut the budget but
it also raised some of its filing fees amounting to about
$1.2 million in general fund dollars. Judiciary had not
raised its fees for over a dozen years. There were a few
other items that were implemented to save costs including
an online juror questionnaire anticipated to save the state
about $30 thousand in the following year. The court system
was also going to change the court rules to allow more e-
distribution of documents which would amount to a savings
of over $100 thousand per year. He spoke of receiving an
email from the woman who oversaw all of the court
interpreters. She reported having saved $26 thousand in the
court's contract for interpreters. The three cost savings
measures equated to two full-time positions. Judiciary was
looking everywhere it could to find savings.
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 23: "FY 17 Operating Budget."
He reported that the court system's budget request for FY
17 was $3.8 million less than the previous year which
included taking out $2.2 million for raises. The budget
request was a 3.8 percent reduction. The court system would
continue to take measures to reduce costs.
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 24: "FY 17 Operating Budget
(cont.)." He spoke of further reductions in the area of
personal services. He expounded that all staff would be
working Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The courts would continue to close at 4:30 p.m. giving
staff 30 minutes of uninterrupted time at the end of each
day to finish up their work and to prep for the following
day. The court would close at noon on Fridays. The net
result was a 1.5 hour reduction of hours for each employee,
a 4 percent pay reduction. The department would also add 17
positions to the long-term vacancy pool resulting in a
total of 52 fewer employees by July 1st than the previous
year. He reported that Judiciary had always had 8 positions
in the long-term vacancy pool, but was adding 52 - 52 jobs
that used to exist that would not exist anymore. The
department would also continue to ask for voluntary LWOP
and would continue to leave positions that it would leave
vacant for as long as possible. Judiciary's priority was to
avoid layoffs. He explained that most of the employees
would prefer for everyone to have smaller reductions than
resorting to layoffs. By closing at noon on Fridays and
reducing employees pay by 4 percent the department saved
about $2.1 million. Otherwise, to save that money the
department would have to lay off about 25 people. It was
already planning on being down 52 positions in addition to
the 8 that were vacant totaling 60 positions. He suggested
that if people were laid off rather than reducing hours and
pay the department would be down 85 positions. He concluded
that by reducing hours and pay the department was able to
keep more courts open longer than if it laid off 25
employees.
3:28:43 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how many hours employees would be
working per week. Mr. Wooliver replied that employees
worked 8 hours Monday through Thursday and half days on
Friday totaling 36 hours per week rather than 37.5 hours.
Therefore, it equated to 1.5 hours less per week per
employee totaling a 4 percent reduction.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if employees would be paid a
lesser amount. Mr. Wooliver confirmed that employees would
be paid 4 percent less.
Mr. Wooliver scrolled to slide 25: "FY 17 and Beyond." He
was uncertain about the budget looking forward. However, e-
filing was a certain way to receive, transmit, store, and
manage documents and was already funded. The department was
going through the long process of adopting a new way of
doing business. He reported that the states that have
changed over to e-filing had seen significant savings. It
would be one of the reforms that would survive the budget
crisis.
Mr. Wooliver concluded with slide 26: "FY 17 and
Beyond…(Cont.)." He stated that access to justice was a
priority and a challenge. He suggested that with additional
budget cuts the state would be forced to close certain
court locations. It was not an option the court system
wanted to exercise but perhaps it would be necessary down
the road. One of the things the department was doing to
cooperate with other agencies was video conferencing which
saved a great deal of time and money especially for the DOC
and the DPS. He reported having gone live two weeks prior
with a connection between Anvil Mountain in Nome, the Nome
courthouse, and the Kotzebue courthouse. He supposed that
increases to one department could mean savings elsewhere.
The court system would continue efforts working with other
departments.
3:32:27 PM
Representative Kawasaki referenced slide 7. He thought it
looked as if 24 percent of the trial court filings were
criminal cases. Next he pointed to slide 10 which noted
that trials from FY 15 were down 14 percent from FY 13 and
down 7 percent from FY 14. Similarly, in District Court
misdemeanor trials were up 1 percent but trial courts were
down a total of 21 percent from year-to-year. The slide
also noted the Superior and District Court trials for FY 16
were significantly less in FY 14. He wondered why, with
fewer cases, the same number of staff would be needed at
present.
Mr. Wooliver answered that there were not fewer cases but
fewer trials. The savings of about $100 thousand was in
jury costs. He suggested that when Judiciary closed courts
it saved about $250 thousand which was half of a 1 day
closure. It was a sort of fortuitous savings but helped in
other areas.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the number of Superior
Court judges per case load. Mr. Wooliver believed there
were stats but they were not all the same between states.
There were judges that appeared to have thousands of cases.
However, they were counted much differently in other states
than in Alaska. He believed it was difficult to make
equitable cross state comparisons.
3:35:03 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler mentioned the proposal from the
Department of Law (DOL) to shut down the prosecutor's
office in Dillingham. He asked if there was a breakeven
point in caseload or workload where there would not be a
savings from closing an office. Mr. Wooliver relayed that,
although he could not speak for the LAW, Judiciary looked
at what point it would be better to have a roving
magistrate to serve the smaller magistrate courts. He
agreed that it was important not to close a court and end
up spending more on travel, per diem, and hotels. He
thought it was important to identify a savings before
closing a court.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if Mr. Wooliver anticipated
additional work within the court system regarding the
legalization of marijuana. Mr. Wooliver responded in the
negative. He elaborated that there were never very many
possession cases limited to just marijuana. Usually people
in jail for marijuana possession were in jail for marijuana
possession and something else, at least for the small
amounts.
Vice-Chair Saddler agreed.
Representative Edgmon commented that there were some great
opportunities within the criminal justice system to reform
the system making it more efficient and saving the state a
significant amount of money. He expressed concern how one
arm of the system did not know what the other arm was doing
and how cuts to one agency trickled down to other agencies.
He believed the costs associated with bringing the district
attorney position from Dillingham into Anchorage would
ultimately cost the DOL more than the savings registered in
the DOL's bottom line.
Co-Chair Thompson thanked Mr. Wooliver for his presentation
and reviewed the agenda for the following meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| FY 17 Presentation for House Finance 2 1 16 Jan 29 Final.pdf |
HFIN 2/1/2016 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DOT-HFIN Final for 1 Feb 2016 for Committee.pdf |
HFIN 2/1/2016 1:30:00 PM |
|
| #48a DOT&PF Response to HFIN Comm Hearing 02 01 16 Questions.pdf |
HFIN 2/1/2016 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Attachment #2 Static Map-Downtown Fairbanks.pdf |
HFIN 2/1/2016 1:30:00 PM |
DOT Response HFIN |
| Attachment #1 Everyday Lean Innovations & Ideas.pdf |
HFIN 2/1/2016 1:30:00 PM |
DOT Response HFIN |
| State-Owned Airports.xlsx |
HFIN 2/1/2016 1:30:00 PM |
DOT Response HFIN |