Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/31/2017 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| SB97 | |
| SB55 | |
| SB54 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to crime and criminal law; relating
to violation of condition of release; relating to sex
trafficking; relating to sentencing; relating to
probation; relating to the pretrial services program;
and providing for an effective date."
9:16:04 AM
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
(DOC) wondered whether he should provide an overview of the
fiscal note.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that she and Mr. Williams had a
conversation about the magnitude and the implications of
the bill. She requested that the conversation be put on the
record as to why the Senate was seeing an indeterminate
fiscal note. Commissioner Williams realized that it was
unusual to provide three fiscal notes from DOC. He shared
that there had been great analysis of the financial
implications of SB 54. He stressed that the DOC relied on
2015 with new assumptions, with no record of "that really
looks like." He felt that DOC was "in a guesstimate place."
He felt that the indeterminate note was the best note DOC
could offer. He noted that the data was from 2015 related
to the C felony issue. He stressed that there were new
assumptions from the recent change in the law, so there was
no firm standing of the issue. He remarked that there were
new assumptions.
9:21:00 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered how to understand all the
effects. She stated that the commissioner had attempted to
put a range in the variables to provide the best estimates
of the impact.
Senator Olson remarked that approximately one-fifth of the
savings from the previous year's projections would be
returned. He wondered whether the previous savings would be
eliminated. Commissioner Williams replied that some of the
changes in SB 54 would cost more money. He stated that
there was an understanding that "hard beds are
commodities." He agreed that some savings would be lost.
Senator Olson stressed that the public wanted to be sure
that public safety would be enhanced. Commissioner Williams
agreed and stated that the intention was always to improve
safety.
Senator Micciche felt that the calculations in the fiscal
notes were on a one to one basis. Commissioner Williams
replied that the department was always contemplating the
concerns.
Co-Chair MacKinnon read page 2 of the fiscal note.
9:30:00 AM
JULI LUCKY, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, explained the
other fiscal notes.
9:31:20 AM
AT EASE
9:35:23 AM
RECONVENED
9:35:36 AM
Senator von Imhof MOVED Amendment 1, 30-LS0461\R.9, Martin,
3/30/17 (copy on file):
Page 8, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 15. AS 29.25.070(g) is amended to read:
(g) If a municipality prescribes a penalty for a
violation of a municipal ordinance, including a
violation under (a) of this section, and there is a
comparable state crime [OFFENSE] under AS 11 or AS 28
with elements that are similar to the municipal
ordinance, the municipality may not impose a greater
punishment than that imposed for a violation of the
state crime [LAW]. This subsection applies to home
rule and general law municipalities."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Senator von Imhof explained Amendment 1. She stated that
the language amended AS 33.16.130 subsection C, which dealt
with the scheduling of follow-up parole hearings following
a denial of parole.
9:37:31 AM
JEFF EDWARDS, DIRECTOR OF PAROLE BOARD, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), stated that there was ambiguity in the
language of SB 91. He shared that prior to SB 91, the board
felt obligated to set a ten-year rule.
Senator Olson queried the effect of the parole status of
those incarcerates in rural Alaska. Mr. Edwards replied
that it would allow more flexibility for the board to make
their decisions.
Senator Olson surmised that there would be no negative
effect on his district.
9:40:19 AM
JORDAN SCHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, stated that
the sponsor of the bill was in support of the amendment.
Senator Micciche felt that the amendment was an important
amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Schilling to remain at the
table. She announced some people who were available online
to answer questions.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:42:30 AM
Senator Micciche Amendment 2, 30-LS046 l \R.6, Martin,
3/29/17 (copy on file).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Senator Micciche explained the amendment. He stated there
was a report that showed the high cost of controlled
substance and alcohol abuse in the state. He stated that
the amendment required that individuals complete the
Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) program when arrested
for misconduct involving a controlled substance.
Co-Chair Hoffman queried the fee schedules. Senator
Micciche replied that the fee schedules were in Section 11.
9:45:42 AM
AT EASE
9:45:50 AM
RECONVENED
9:45:53 AM
Senator Micciche stated that the fee schedule was in
regulation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the bill sponsor's position on
the amendment. Mr. Schilling replied that the sponsor did
not oppose the amendment, and it did not conflict with the
commission's recommendations.
9:47:28 AM
TONY PIPER, ASAP MANAGER, DIVISION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), introduced himself.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for information about the
amendment and the fiscal note. Mr. Piper replied that the
amount of people added to the system was small enough to
use the current staffing. The added fees would help offset
any costs.
Senator Olson wondered whether the program participants
would pay for at least part of the cost. Mr. Piper replied
in the affirmative.
Senator Olson noted that some of the participants were from
lower incomes. He wondered how those individuals,
especially those in rural Alaska, would pay for the
program. Mr. Piper replied that many people could pay the
$200 fee. He stressed that the service was provided
regardless of payment.
Senator Olson queried the locations of the programs. Mr.
Piper replied that the ASAP offices were in thirteen
different areas.
Senator Olson wondered who paid for transportation from the
rural areas. Mr. Piper replied that occasionally a
treatment office would provide the treatment.
Senator Olson wondered how a someone without access to ASAP
participate in the program. Mr. Piper responded that that
person would seek help with the closest treatment agency.
There were some opportunities for distance agencies, and
some treatment over the internet.
9:51:33 AM
Senator Olson noted that internet was only available in
schools in rural Alaska. Mr. Piper understood.
Senator Micciche stated that the amendment would only
expand ASAP to those violations involving a controlled
substance.
Senator Olson asked if the commissioner could comment on
the matter.
Commissioner Williams stated that he was unfamiliar with
the situation.
Senator Olson stated that rural Alaska often did not have
access like the other parts of the state.
9:53:35 AM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, explained that ASAP was a condition that could be
imposed, but not required. He had practiced law in the YK
Delta, Bethel, Bristol Bay, and Dillingham, and judges were
familiar with what was available in their communities. He
reiterated that the amendment would allow people to use
ASAP when available.
Senator Olson wondered if people in places such as Chevak
would be disadvantaged.
Mr. Skidmore acknowledged that there were not challenges in
rural communities.
Senator Olson asked if Mr. Skidmore considered there to be
undue challenges.
Mr. Skidmore agreed that there were challenges.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:56:06 AM
AT EASE
9:57:00 AM
RECONVENED
9:57:05 AM
Senator Dunleavy MOVED Amendment 3, 30-LS0461\R.5, Martin,
3/28/17 (copy on file0:
Page 11, following line 12:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 18. AS 33.30.061 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) A prisoner serving a term of imprisonment at a
private residence as required by statute when
electronic monitoring is not available does not have a
liberty interest in that status. The commissioner may
return the prisoner to a correctional facility if the
commissioner finds that the prisoner has violated the
terms and conditions of the imprisonment at the
private residence."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 12, line 8:
Delete "sec. 21"
Insert "sec. 22"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
9:57:19 AM
GINA RITACCO, STAFF, SENATOR MIKE DUNLEAVY, explained that
the amendment was requested by the Office of Victims
Rights. She stated that there was concern about first-time
DUI offenders who were not on electronic monitoring would
allow for the commissioner to send them to prison for
violating their house arrest. The amendment clarified the
language that the commissioner had that authority.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether there was any comment
from other agencies regarding the amendment.
Senator von Imhof asked how many people violated the
electronic monitoring.
Senator Dunleavy stated that he did not have those numbers.
9:58:40 AM
AT EASE
9:59:14 AM
RECONVENED
9:59:24 AM
Senator von Imhof queried data that provided the number of
instances where prisoners violated the electronic
monitoring. Commissioner Williams replied that the
provision was too new to provide data.
Senator von Imhof wondered if there had been conversations
with the Office of Victims Rights regarding the issue.
Commissioner Williams replied that the amendment was a "red
hot area." He stressed that the issue was about the
capacity for the department to respond to the issues.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the administration's position on
Amendment 3. Commissioner Williams replied that he did not
have a position on Amendment 3. He understood the amendment
sponsor's intention. He expressed concern about the
expectation to respond, and the department's capacity to
respond.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at line 6 of the amendment, "the
commissioner may return the prisoner to a correctional
facility, if the commissioner finds that the prisoner has
violated the terms and conditions of imprisonment at the
private sector." Commissioner Williams recognized that
discretionary language.
10:02:51 AM
Senator Micciche wondered whether the commissioner already
possessed the authority. Commissioner Williams replied that
there is a debate about whether that authority was already
granted. He stated that some believed that the authority
was already there.
Senator Dunleavy stressed that the amendment was only
clarifying language.
Senator Micciche wondered what it meant when a prisoner did
not have a liberty interest in the status.
Mr. Skidmore stated that liberty interest was for first-
time DUIs.
10:06:03 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the bill sponsor's position on
Amendment 3. Mr. Schilling stated that Senator Coghill did
not oppose the amendment. The amendment clarified DOC's
authority.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that she planned to bring a
committee substitute before the committee on Monday.
10:06:56 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman shared that commission had discussion
regarding the zero to ninety-day presumptive jail range.
Mr. Schilling stated that he was in support of the change.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried comment on the proposal.
Senator Dunleavy wondered whether Co-Chair Hoffman would
only be offering one amendment. Co-Chair Hoffman replied in
the affirmative.
SB 54 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 54 Department of Law Response - Plea Negotiations.pdf |
SFIN 3/31/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 55 Amendment 1 MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 3/31/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 55 |
| SB 54 Opposition Burwen.pdf |
SFIN 3/31/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Testimony Helander.pdf |
SFIN 3/31/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Amendment 3 Dunleavy.pdf |
SFIN 3/31/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Amendment 1 Von Imhof.pdf |
SFIN 3/31/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Amendment 2 Micchiche.pdf |
SFIN 3/31/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |