HOUSE BILL 75 An Act relating to criminal mischief. Co-Chair Hanley provided members with a committee substitute for HB 75, Work Draft #9-LS0369\O, dated 2/15/96 (copy on file). ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW reviewed the committee substitute. She noted that the Committee discussed the inclusion of vehicles that would be 2 covered under the felony vehicle theft provision during the 2/13/95 meeting. This information was added on page 1, line 12 of the work draft. She added that page 2, line 30 provides for vehicle theft in the second degree. She observed that vehicles not specified under vehicle theft in the first degree would be covered under vehicle theft in the second degree. She clarified that snow machines fit under vehicle theft in the second degree. Second degree theft is an A misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of up to a $5,000 thousand dollar fine and one year in jail. Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Work Draft #9-LS0369\O, dated 2/15/96. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Mulder prepared a House Finance Committee fiscal note for the Department of Corrections (Attachment 1). He explained that the House Finance Committee fiscal note was based on assumptions used in the Department of Corrections' fiscal note for SB 14. Senate Bill 14 was introduced in 1995 by Senator Leman. Senate Bill 14 also addressed criminal mischief. Ms. Carpeneti characterized HB 75 as a "tougher" bill than SB 14. She observed that HB 75 raises the offense of vehicle theft from a class A misdemeanor to a class C felony. She estimated that this change will result in additional costs. Representative Mulder maintained that the costs would not be greater. He provided members with copies of the Department of Corrections' fiscal note for SB 14 (Attachment 2). Discussion ensued regarding the provisions of SB 14. JERRY LUCKHAUPT, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY clarified that CSSB 14 (JUD), vetoed by the Governor, retained the existing penalty structure for juveniles. He observed that the original draft of SB 14 would have revised the penalty structure. The original draft more closely resembled HB 75. Representative Mulder pointed out that Attachment 2 was drafted based on the original version of SB 14. He maintained that the provisions of SB 14 can be compared for fiscal impact. JERRY SHRINER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS discussed Attachments 1 and 2. He explained that the calculations used in the fiscal note for SB 14 did not take into account the number of second time felons that would be presumptively sentenced to a minimum of four years. Thirty-two of one hundred and sixty offenders prosecuted under felony car theft in HB 75 are estimated to 3 be second time offenders. Representative Mulder provided members with assumptions used in preparations of the House Finance Committee fiscal note for the Department of Corrections, HB 75 (Attachment 3). He maintained that the assumptions used by the Department of Corrections were excessive. He observed that the Department estimated that it will cost $107 dollars a day to house these offenders. He reviewed assumptions used in Attachment 3. He estimated that it will cost $57 dollars a day to house second time offenders. The fiscal note authorizes 1.4 new positions. He clarified that the House Finance Committee fiscal note was based on assumptions used in the fiscal note prepared by the Department of Corrections for SB 14, regarding the number of offenders and days served. Mr. Shriner noted that the Department estimated that 32 out of 160 offenders would be second time offenders which would be incarcerated for a minimum of 90 days. He stressed that $107 dollars a day is the Department's best guess regarding what it costs to operate. He stated that CRC's and probation costs would be more than $1.0 million dollars even if the prison time was eliminated. The fiscal note prepared by Representative Mulder for the House Finance Committee estimates a cost of $801.0 thousand dollars for the Department of Corrections. The Department's fiscal note estimates a cost of $1.306.7 million dollars. Representative Brown noted that state prisons are at capacity. She questioned how the cost of incarceration could be zero. Representative Mulder stated that every institution is not at full capacity. He maintained that the 32 offenders can be absorbed into existing institutions. He asserted that there is elasticity in the Department in regards to cost. He maintained that 32 extra offenders are not going to increase the Department's cost of doing business. Representative Brown expressed doubt that the Department could absorb 32 prisoners without additional cost. In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Representative Mulder reiterated factors used in the calculations of the fiscal note. Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 75 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes, with the exception of the fiscal note for the Department of Corrections. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt the $801.0 thousand dollar House Finance Committee fiscal note for the 4 Department of Corrections. Representative Brown OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Navarre, Parnell, Therriault, Hanley OPPOSED: Brown Co-Chair Foster and Representative Grussendorf were absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (8-1). CSHB 75 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with nine fiscal impact notes; three by the Department of Health & Social Services, dated 1/30/96; one by the Department of Law, dated 1/30/96; one by the Alaska Court System, dated 1/30/96; two by the Department of Public Safety, dated 1/30/96; one by the House Finance Committee for the Department of Corrections; and one by the Department of Administration. HOUSE BILL 75 An Act relating to criminal mischief. Representative Mulder clarified that CSHB 75 (FIN) and the original version of SB 14 were both tougher than CSSB 14 (JUD) which was vetoed by the Governor after the last session.