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.