Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/08/1998 01:45 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 272
"An Act to permit a court to order a defendant who
receives a sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor
to serve the sentence by electronic monitoring; and
relating to the crime of unlawful evasion."
JEFF LOGAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GREEN discussed the fiscal
note by the Department of Corrections dated 4/7/98. The new
fiscal note showed a substantial reduction from the first
fiscal note. He explained that the fiscal note anticipates
a pilot program of electronic monitoring in Anchorage.
There are similar programs in the state of Alaska for
juvenile offenders. This would be a new program for adult
offenders. He anticipated that private sector contractors
would be involved in the administration of the program. The
Department has indicated that it does not have expertise in
this area.
Co-Chair Therriault acknowledged that the release of
prisoners on electronic monitoring would not necessarily
result in fewer guards. He Therriault anticipated that
there would be some incidental savings for food and
clothing.
SAM TRIVETTE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS discussed the
Department's fiscal note. He noted that the primary expense
is in the contractual line. He stated that a project would
be developed for the Anchorage area, utilizing 60 offenders
in the first half of FY 99. The program would be
implemented by January 1999. The Department spends $100
dollars a day for hard beds and $57 dollars a day for
Community Residential Center (CRC) beds. He stressed that
these beds need to be reserved for the most serious
offenders. Less serious offenders could be put on
electronic monitoring. He spoke in support of the
legislation. He pointed out that high-risk offenders, such
as domestic violence offenders, would not be considered for
electronic monitoring. Offender fees will be considered.
The only state personnel will be a probation officer to
oversee the function of the program. He emphasized that the
Department is not expecting to have any empty beds as a
result of the legislation. The Department is well above its
emergency caps for prisoner population in its facilities.
Mr. Trivette stated that it costs approximately $1.42 per
meal. There would be a savings of $4.26 dollars a day for
each prisoner that is released.
Representative Mulder estimated that 60 additional prisoners
would cost the Department approximately $2.2 million dollars
annually. He pointed out that the legislation would remove
60 prisoners from the system. He observed that prisoners
are being shipped to Arizona. He maintained that there are
real cost savings from the legislation.
Mr. Trivette reiterated that the only time there will be any
major savings is if a facility or wing of a facility can be
closed.
Representative Mulder stated that the average direct cost
per institution is approximately $72 dollars a day. The
indirect costs, such as inmate health care, programs;
administrative support cost approximately $28 dollars a day
per inmate. He maintained that there should be at least a
$28 dollar a day savings.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the removal of 60
prisoners would reduce the number of prisoners sent to
Arizona. Mr. Trivette acknowledged that cost savings would
occur if fewer prisoners were sent out-of-state. He
pointed out that the Department is very far over its caps.
He did not think that there would be a reduction in the
number of prisoners sent to Arizona.
Co-Chair Hanley asked if the net cost of food was reduced in
the fiscal note. Mr. Trivette did not know. Co-Chair
Hanley observed that there would be a total savings of $100
thousand dollars per year.
Representative Mulder stressed that the Governor's Criminal
Justice Task Force strongly supported electronic monitoring
as a way to relieve overcrowding in the system. The Task
Force unanimously endorsed the concept of having the private
provider provide the service. They envisioned that
prisoners would pay one hour of their wage per workday to
support the program. The cost of the program would be paid
for by the inmate support.
Representative Mulder MOVED to amend the Department of
Corrections' fiscal note by shifting the fund source from
pure general fund dollars to general fund program receipts.
Mr. Trivette stated that the Department supports paying for
the program through program receipts. He did not think it
was realistic to expect the program to be totally funded
through program receipts. He pointed out that programs in
other states are not wholly supported through program
receipts. He stated that the Department would look at
programs in other states.
Representative Davies MOVED to amend the amendment by
retaining the personal services line in the general fund
line. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
There being NO OBJECTION, the Committee adopted an amended
House Finance Committee fiscal note for the Department of
Corrections:
$30 thousand dollars for personal services in general
funds and $100.3 thousand dollars in general fund
program receipts for FY 99; and
$60 thousand dollars for personal services in general
funds and $195.6 thousand dollars in general fund
program receipts for FY 00 - FY 04.
Representative Davies provided members with Amendment 1
(copy on file). He expressed concern that prisoners that do
not have resources not be excluded from participating in the
program. Amendment 1 would add "but only if the
commissioner determines that the prisoner has sufficient
financial resources to pay the costs or a portion of the
costs" on line 28, page 3.
Co-Chair Hanley expressed concern that the amendment would
provide a statutory defense for prisoners that does not want
to pay.
Representative Davies stated that the determination to pay
could be made based on their public defender circumstance.
Representative Martin spoke against the amendment.
Representative Davies MOVED to amend the amendment, by
deleting " the commissioner determines that". He argued
that the current language provides that a prisoner either
pay all of the cost of 50 percent of the cost. He
emphasized that some prisoners may not be able to pay 50
percent of the cost.
There being NO OBJECTION, the amendment was amended to state
"but only if the prisoner has sufficient financial resources
to pay the costs or a portion of the costs".
Mr. Logan emphasized that contractors could setup a program
to allow indigents to be subsidized from the portion paid by
other prisoners. He observed that there are cases where an
indigent prisoner would be a great prospect for electronic
monitoring.
Representative Davies emphasized that the first question is
how much of the cost is each inmate expected to pay. The
second question is how much is an indigent expected to pay.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that his intent was that most
prisoners pay 100 percent and that some prisoners pay less
or nothing. Representative Davies reiterated that the
intent of the amendment is to clarify that indigents would
not be eliminated from participating in the program based on
their inability to pay.
Representative Martin OBJECTED to Amendment 1. He felt that
the amendment was confusing.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kelly, Moses, Mulder, Davies, Grussendorf, Foster,
Hanley
OPPOSED: Kohring, Martin, Therriault
Representative Davis was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (3-7).
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 272 out of
Committee with the accompanying revised fiscal note.
CSHB 272 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the
House Finance Committee for the Department of Corrections.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|