MINUTES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE April 7, 1999 6:07 PM TAPES SFC-99 # 81, Side A and Side B CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair John Torgerson reconvened the meeting at approximately 6:07 PM. PRESENT Senator John Torgerson, Senator Randy Phillips, Senator Dave Donley, Senator Loren Leman, Senator Gary Wilken, Senator Al Adams, Senator Pete Kelly and Senator Lyda Green. Also Attending: BRUCE RICHARDS, Program Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Corrections; ROBERT BUTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer, Department of Health and Social Services; DWIGHT PERKINS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor; AL DWYER, Director, Division of Labor Standards and Safety, Department of Labor; WENDY REDMOND, Vice President, University Relations, University of Alaska. Attending via Teleconference: From Anchorage: BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defenders Agency, Department of Administration. SUMMARY INFORMATION SB 8-MINIMUM REQUIRED PLUMBING FACILITIES The committee heard from the Department of Labor. Amendment SB 1-NO MANDATORY PAROLE RELEASE WITHOUT GED The committee heard testimony from the sponsor, the Department of Corrections and the Public Defenders Agency. The bill was held in committee. SB 11-PRISON TIME CREDITS FOR MURDERERS The committee heard testimony from the sponsor, the Department of Corrections and the Public Defenders Agency. The bill was reported out of committee. SB 108-PROBATION AND PAROLE FEES The committee heard testimony from the sponsor, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Public Defenders Agency. The bill was held in committee. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 8(STA) "An Act relating to the minimum plumbing fixtures required for females and males in the state plumbing code; and providing for an effective date." This was the second hearing for this bill. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if the department had put together the information requested at the last hearing. Senator Dave Donley said the handout he provided and the proposed amendment was at the request of the department. The handout conformed to the amendment. He said Senator Gary Wilken's map showing the number of toilets that would be required was correct. However, the facility's capacity numbers had to be reduced by one-half to consider that half of the visitors would be women and half men. Therefore, all the number quoted at the previous meeting should be reduced by one-half. The largest facility in the State of Alaska was the Sullivan Arena and held approximately 6,250. That figure would be reduced by one-half to calculate the number of toilets required. The Sullivan Arena would need 41 toilets total under these calculations. He asked the Al Dwyer to explain the amendment. AL DWYER, Director, Division of Labor Standards and Safety, Department of Labor recommended the amendment be adopted and explained that the current language contained the oversight of including the total capacity rather than one- half the total capacity. The department wanted to maintain the criteria from the Uniform Building Code that required fewer facilities for men. Senator Dave Donley explained that the amendment would just adopt a uniform method for establishing the number of lavatories in relation to the number of toilets, water closets and urinals. Senator Dave Donley made a motion to adopt Amendment #3. He clarified for Co-Chair John Torgerson that this amendment would not affect that changes made by Amendment #2. Senator Lyda Green objected to the motion for question. BREAK 6:13PM / 6:13 PM Senator Lyda Green asked if the formula would take the number of occupants and divide that by two to determine the amount of females who would use the facilities. Al Dwyer affirmed. Senator Lyda Green asked if that was currently in state statute. Al Dwyer again affirmed. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked about facilities that were remodeled and did not have to be grandfathered in. Al Dwyer responded that remodels that did not add to the occupancy load would be exempt unless the plumbing system was completely changed. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked were that was stipulated. Al Dwyer answered it was contained in the department's regulations. Co-Chair John Torgerson referred to the issue of deferred maintenance projects and wanted assurance that this bill would not affect those. Al Dwyer gave that reassurance. Amendment #3 was adopted without objection. Senator Dave Donley offered a motion to move CS SB 8 (FIN) from committee. Senator Loren Leman objected to comment on the record research he had did to determine the cost for each toilet. The architect he spoke to estimated the cost to be approximately $10,000. He removed his objection. Without objection, the bill was reported out of committee. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 1(JUD) "An Act conditioning the award of good time and release on mandatory parole on the attainment of certain minimum educational standards for prisoners serving certain sentences." Senator Dave Donley spoke to this bill. This issue came up during discussions studying the propensity for prisoners to reoffend once they were released. Many studies showed that the number one factor in recidivism among felons was whether or not they could read and write. It was found that many states were beginning to adopt standards prisoners obtain their GED before release that required for good time credits that shortened sentences that. He noted that Alaska was one of the few states that did not comply with the federal standards of serving 85% of sentences. SB 1 stated that in order for prisoners to have good time release, they had to obtain their GED. He felt this would be an incentive and referenced TV privileges. The bill was amended in Senate Judiciary to allow for those prisoners that did not have the capacity to obtain their GED. He listed the exemptions, language barriers, age and social circumstances. The bill only applied when the GED program was available so an inmate that did not have that program available, they would not be discriminated against. He spoke of examples from other states. An example of how bad the problem was, Alabama tested inmates as they entered the system and found that the recitism rate mirrored the education rate. If a prisoner was released and could not read or write it would be difficult to get a job and they would be tempted to return to crime. He spoke to the fiscal notes. Co-Chair John Torgerson pointed out that there were new fiscal notes that were not zero. Senator Dave Donley added that this would apply only to those serving more than two years. Senator Al Adams felt the bill was a good concept but needed some changes. He felt an incentive needed to be added. He said the amendment was not written correctly but he hoped Senator Dave Donley would help correct it. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if this would leave the original good time release in place but only add an additional sixty days early release. Senator Al Adams affirmed but added that this amendment was in its early stage and felt it would reduce the fiscal note. Senator Al Adams answered it would and explained. Co-Chair John Torgerson page 1 lines 9-12 said that if the inmate already had a diploma and - would that amendment change that section. His point was that if you already had your diploma when entering, ROXANNE STEWART, staff to Senator Al Adams, clarified that the intent was that if you already had your diploma, you would not get the additional 60 days off. Senator Dave Donley spoke of the national standards and said that Alaska was behind. This amendment would move away from truth in sentencing. It did make progress toward motivating prisoners to get an education. Senator Dave Donley asked about the provision for the 99- year mandatory sentencing. Senator Al Adams said that portion was a drafting error and should not be included. Senator Dave Donley commented that it was a policy call. Senator Al Adams said the problem with the truth in sentencing issue was that it was difficult to measure between states. Many states had shorter initial sentences. He referred to earlier testimony heard in committee relating to other bills. Co-Chair John Torgerson had a similar thought based on the fiscal notes, but also understood Senator Dave Donley's concerns. Senator Dave Donley offered another middle ground option to go halfway. Without the GED prisoners would be eligible for only half the 33.3%. He believed that many prisoners would be getting their GED's and would not affect the fiscal notes as greatly as predicted. Senator Lyda Green wanted to know if in the attachment to the PDA fiscal note they brought up a good point. Who would do the testing to see who would be exempt from the provision? She speculated it would become expensive if the department had to pay for the psychologist to analyze the prisoner's ability to get the GED. Senator Dave Donley allowed that if a great number of prisoners challenged they were not capable. The department would have to find a way to do that. However, he felt the benefits of the education would outweigh the long run costs of reoffenders. Senator Lyda Green commented that some may be able to make educational advancements but still be unable to earn their GED. She suggested some allowances be made for those efforts. Senator Dave Donley said other states set different standards and that could be done here as well. Senator Gary Wilken noted fiscal note #5 comments. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked for clarifications of Senator Dave Donley's suggestion of halving the requirements. Senator Dave Donley said he would need assistance from the drafters. The intent was to allow those who did not get their GED, they would only obtain half of their reduction rather than not get any early release. Senator Dave Donley aquested to Senator Al Adams's comments that different states had different measurements. BRUCE RICHARDS, Program Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Corrections, testified. Senator Al Adams explained that they were trying to use the good time release, as an incentive to get prisoner's to obtain their GED. He wanted to know if this would affect the department in the different *. Bruce explained his understanding of the two amendments. Senator Al Adams's would reduce the amount of the fiscal notes because it would not affect the good-time release for incarceration time. Senator Dave Donley's would affect. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if the department anticipated a negative fiscal note with the adoption of Senator Al Adams's amendment. Bruce thought it might. He noted that there could be costs because the burden of proof as to how had their diplomas would fall on the department. He didn't think that would be very costly. Co-Chair John Torgerson wanted to know if it would be possible to use Senator Al Adams's concept on a sliding scale. 60 days for a two-year sentence. 90 days for a 5- year sentence. Bruce commented on the incentive for inmates receiving less compensation as the next prisoners did. He also said it could be complicated for the department to implement. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if it would be a big incentive difference for the inmates if *. Bruce would have to research. He still felt if would be a zero fiscal note for either scenario. Co-Chair John Torgerson said the goal was to get the prisoners to obtain their GEDs, which offered a better incentive. Bruce commented that if it were him personally that he would be motivated by the potential for early release. BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defenders Agency, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. This had been a good discussion. He felt there would be difficulties for his agency on enforcement. There would be a zero fiscal note. He pointed out page 2 line 18-30 he felt it should be clear that the language of "incapable of obtaining a diploma" That needed to be clarified. An inmate might be capable but not have time to bring himself through the diploma. There was a statute he noted in the analysis section of the fiscal note relating the treatment programs. He felt these mechanisms could be one approach. He commented that prisons were overcrowded and prisoners were often transferred once they entered into a program. He was in favor of testing for GED. Co-Chair John Torgerson wanted to know if Alaskan prisoners house out of state had access to these programs. Bruce affirmed they did. Co-Chair John Torgerson requested Senator Dave Donley to work on his amendment. Senator Al Adams asked if they could work to draft one amendment to address. Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 11(JUD) "An Act relating to good time credits for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for certain murders." Senator Dave Donley restated that Alaska had liberal good- time provisions. There was a growing concern among victims that those serving time for first and second degree could have inappropriate early release through the good time release. There was a national movement that sentences be understandable. It would be too expensive to institute an across the board change to the state's 33% good time release so he proposed applying this to those serving fist and second-degree murder sentences. He realized that many serving sentences for those crimes had lengthy terms, but felt that through good time release programs, the sentences served were greatly reduced. He noted there would be a substantial fiscal impact in the future. However, he felt the national 85% standard was appropriate and should be applied to these crimes. Moving closer to honesty in sentencing also appropriate. Early release of murderers sent a bad message to the community. He felt there was a logical distinction between those who committed murder and other crimes. Tape: SFC - 99 #81, Side B 6:55 PM Senator Al Adams commented that if every state had the same sentencing for crimes, this would be appropriate. Because Alaska had higher sentences, they would be serving too much time. He discussed the issue of high medical costs for housing older prisoners. Blair McClune commented that there could be * challenges to the original bill. He felt that was less of an issue with the CS. He hoped the committee would consider the amount of time it would take a prisoner to reenter the community after a lengthy prison term. He suggested housing them in a halfway house or similar facility. He agreed that truth in sentencing was important. Bruce Richards commented that Senator Dave Donley covered the issues of the bill. He noted that the department submitted a zero fiscal note because the fiscal impact would be realized beyond the years listed on the notes. He did a prediction of their current prisoners. He estimated the first year impact would be $53X,000. It was a policy call with a significant impact. The cost would continue to increase with geriatric costs. He testified that inmates tended to have a higher abuse of their own bodies and therefore geriatric problems began at the age of 50. Senator Al Adams noted that Alaska sent many prisoners to Arizona, which recently implemented the 85% standard. He wondered if those prisoners were affected by that. Bruce said they were not. Senator Dave Donley commented on the public support of the death penalty. He felt that was in part due to the perception that murders served very short sentences. This bill may be a cheaper alternative than the high cost of the death penalty. Senator Al Adams had not seen the survey done by Senator Randy Phillips and questioned the social make-up of those questioned. Senator Dave Donley reiterated his stance on the importance of the bill despite the fiscal impact. Senator Dave Donley made a motion to move from committee. Senator Al Adams objected. The bill was reported out by a vote of 9-1. Senator Al Adams cast the nay vote. Break 7:06 PM / 7:16 PM SENATE BILL NO. 108 "An Act relating to fees for probation and parole." BEN GRIN, staff to Senator Jerry Ward, would charge Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if he had a chance to review the fiscal notes. Ben had not and admitted he was unfamiliar with the bill. Bruce Richards began by telling the history of the matter. A bill had been adopted and Senator Al Adams had then repealed the legislation. The process was very difficult for the department. The difference in this bill was that it dictated the department contract out the bill collection process. They had been unable to find an agency willing to take on the process. This group of people tended to be difficult to work with. This year, the department was able to find a bank willing to do this. He detailed the proposed collection process. He noted earlier testimony on the success of a similar program in Texas. The reason for that success was that the judge set the priority above child support and restitution. The fiscal note provided was based on a ten- percent collection rate and would not provide a cash flow. The last time this law was in effect the program only brought in $12,000. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if the dollar figure was $1.50. Bruce Richards said it was and that was the national average. Co-Chair John Torgerson noted the sponsor statement was from the prior year. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked how many people this would apply to. Bruce Richards listed the numbers for adults. Department of Health and Social Services would have numbers for youth parolees. Bruce Richards added that it was unclear in the bill that it was possible to be on probation and parole at the same time. He suggested an amendment to change that so the person did not have to pay twice since they had the same parole officer. He referred to page 3 saying that if the PFD was over the amount due, the Department of Corrections would have to refund the difference. He suggested changing that so the department did not have the burden of collecting and then returning a balance. He suggested deleting the language. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if once the assignment was made by the department, he assumed they could only collect after other attachments were made. Bruce Richards affirmed and said that was the reason the department did not anticipate they would collect much after all the other obligations were satisfied. Senator Al Adams observed that this would be a paperwork nightmare. It created two groups of people, parolees and those of probation. Was there any chance an inmate could be both. Bruce Richards said that was his earlier point. Senator Al Adams asked if the department felt this would create a greater burden in collection efforts than it would generate. Bruce Richards said it was and said that was the reason for the fiscal note. Blair McCune, spoke to the difficulties of collection. The PDA would not have a fiscal note if the process was set up to not include probation hearings in the determination of collection efforts. He noted that many of his clients did not have much assets after they settled their other obligations. He told the committee which statutes applied to the Page 2 line31 he understood it to mean this applied only to situations with close supervision. He had concerns that the level of supervision was light for those who did well. He felt the fee would have to be commensurate with the cost of the supervision. He also had concerns with the parents of children in probation. In some situations the parent or a sibling of the child were the victim. He referred to language that said the parole board "shall" revoke parole and felt they should have some discretion. Senator Al Adams asked if the agency would handle both parolees and those on probation who were charged with not paying. Would that increase the workload? Blair said they represented before the parole board those faced with returning to jail. They would be impacted because they had the burden of showing how the non-payment was justified. ROBERT BUTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer, Department of Health and Social Services, testified in opposition to the bill. He suggested deleting sections from the bill in order to exempt juvenile offenders from the provisions. The department would have to have to create a collection unit that would not serve the mission of the department. Department of Health and Social Services placed a high obligation on the parent to participate in the process. That included financial obligations. Sometimes the other costs of these youths placed a burden on the family's finances. He also spoke of instances where the victim is also a member of the family. Senator Al Adams noted most of the PFD collected went to the victims. He asked that percentage. Robert Butcane was unsure but said most restitution in was beyond the amount of the PFD so most went to the victim. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked about the victim service grants listed on the fiscal note. Robert Butcane answered that when the accounts showed receipts in excess of expenditures, the balance was intended to go to support victim services. This would be done by means of grants to community organizations to benefit those who experienced the impact of juvenile crime. This presumed the provided figures were accurate Co-Chair John Torgerson asked for clarification that the bill did not stipulate a specific grant program. Robert Butcane affirmed. Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee. He announced the next meeting schedule to hear balanced budget presentations. ADJOURNED Senator Torgerson adjourned the meeting at 7:49 PM. SFC-99 (13) 4/7/99