Legislature(2025 - 2026)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/11/2025 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| SB64 | |
| SB62 | |
| SB71 | |
| SB19 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 71-PRETRIAL SERVICES SUPERVISION AGRMNTS
4:13:53 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 71
"An Act relating to pretrial services supervision agreements."
4:14:44 PM
JEN WINKELMAN, Commissioner, Department of Corrections (DOC),
Juneau, Alaska, introduced SB 71 on behalf of the sponsor:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Given the state of our budget we are constantly
reviewing all operations for opportunities to generate
offsetting revenues without jeopardizing operations or
public safety.
The pretrial services program was established in 2018.
Currently, the state bears all costs associated with
supervising individuals released to this serviceeven
the costs for defendants charged with municipal
offenses.
This bill would allow the Department to enter into
agreements with municipalities to provide pretrial
supervision for defendants charged with a municipal
offense. These reasonable fees, similar to what we
collect for those defendants who occupy a bed inside a
facility, would allow the Department to recoup some of
the cost for providing this service to municipalities.
There are currently 2 areas within the state who
utilize this service for municipal charges- Anchorage
and Juneau.
Let me take you on a journey.
Mr. Smith is arrested in Anchorage on a municipal
charge and booked into Anchorage Correctional Complex.
As with all arrests, Our DOC Pretrial Officers
complete a risk assessment that is provided to the
Court, prior to arraignment. A few options (but not
all), the Court may consider if continued supervision
is necessary is set bail and have Mr. Smith remain in
custodywe have an agreement in place to charge for
this placement. They may decide to release Mr. Smith
to private EM at his own personal expense. Or they may
decide to release Mr. Smith to pretrial services for
supervision with DOC. If Mr. Smith is released to DOC
Pretrial Services, 100 percent of the cost is on the
state because there is no mechanism or agreement for
the state to bill the municipality for this service.
This bill will allow us to enter into an agreement to
bill for these services.
4:17:34 PM
APRIL WILKERSON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), Juneau, Alaska, provided the sectional analysis for SB
71:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Pretrial Services Agreement
Sectional Analysis Version 34-GS1507\A
Section one AS 33.07.010 Pretrial services program;
establishment is amended to add the clarification of
being charged with a violation of state law.
Section two AS 33.07.020 Duties of commissioner;
pretrial services is amended to add an exception for
additional regulations to be adopted in consultation
with the Department of Law, the public defender, the
Department of Public Safety, the office of victims'
rights, and the Alaska Court System.
Section three AS 33.07.020 adds a new subsection
allowing the commissioner to enter into agreements
with municipalities to charge for pretrial services
and adopting regulations to establish the associated
fees.
Section four AS 33.07.030(g) is amended to update the
statute referencing the guidelines established by
regulation.
Section five AS 37.05.146(c) allows the department to
receive monies for pretrial supervision services.
Section six is the applicability section stating we
shall supervise those who we were ordered to supervise
before the effective date.
4:19:27 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what communities SB 71 would apply
to.
4:19:31 PM
MS. WINKLEMAN answered any community that has a municipal
prosecuting system. Currently Juneau and Anchorage are the only
two communities.
4:19:44 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that SB 71 has a zero fiscal note
and asked if 2.5 million dollars is the net positive revenue to
the state of Alaska.
4:19:55 PM
MS. WILKERSON answered that is correct, the 2.5 million would be
the maximum anticipated amount. The specific form and billing
method would be determined through the regulation process.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked, since Anchorage is about ten times
the size of Juneau, Anchorage would likely account for about 90
percent of the 2.5 million.
MS. WILKERSON responded that would be the estimated cost. The
Department of Corrections (DOC) will work with the
municipalities, and if SB 71 passes, DOC anticipates a potential
budget change in FY 2027.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that this means Anchorage residents
would need to either cut 2.2 million from the budget or raise
taxes by that amount to cover the costs.
4:21:17 PM
MS. WILKERSON answered yes, if the city chose to cover the full
cost. However, there are other options, like the commissioner
mentioned earlier, such as the defendant pays 100 percent of the
cost to use private pretrial services. She said the actual
impact would depend on how the city structures its program.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what percentage of defendants would
be able to pay the full cost of the private monitor service.
4:22:13 PM
MS. WINKLEMAN answered very few would be able to pay for the
private monitoring service.
4:22:26 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON asked if the DOC has heard back from the
municipality of Anchorage about SB 71.
4:22:46 PM
MS. WILKERSON answered that the DOC has not heard back from the
city of Anchorage.
4:22:55 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN stated that the city of Seward recently closed
its jail and asked if Seward was to reopen the jail would this
requirement impact Seward and in what way.
4:23:14 PM
MS. WINKLEMAN answered no unless the city of Seward set up its
own municipal prosecution and defense within the city.
4:23:37 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked why a community would want to have its own
municipal prosecutor versus letting the state handle everything.
4:23:58 PM
MS. WINKLEMAN answered that her guess would be a community would
want to have its own municipal prosecutor because of the revenue
for fees that are associated with charges against individuals.
4:24:16 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that he can see the city of
Anchorage letting the State of Alaska handle all the cases. He
said taking on those cases probably wouldn't be a financial
benefit for the city of Anchorage.
4:24:37 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked if a municipality decided they didn't want
the expense of their own municipal prosecutor would the
municipality be able to transfer the cases back to the state.
4:25:23 PM
MS. WINKLEMAN answered that there is a possibility for a
municipality to transfer the cases back to the state, but
conversations about funding would need to happen first.
4:26:37 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI held SB 71 in committee.