HOUSE BILL NO. 272 "An Act to permit a court to order a defendant who receives a sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor to serve the sentence by electronic monitoring; and relating to the crime of unlawful evasion." JEFF LOGAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GREEN discussed the fiscal note by the Department of Corrections dated 4/7/98. The new fiscal note showed a substantial reduction from the first fiscal note. He explained that the fiscal note anticipates a pilot program of electronic monitoring in Anchorage. There are similar programs in the state of Alaska for juvenile offenders. This would be a new program for adult offenders. He anticipated that private sector contractors would be involved in the administration of the program. The Department has indicated that it does not have expertise in this area. Co-Chair Therriault acknowledged that the release of prisoners on electronic monitoring would not necessarily result in fewer guards. He Therriault anticipated that there would be some incidental savings for food and clothing. SAM TRIVETTE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS discussed the Department's fiscal note. He noted that the primary expense is in the contractual line. He stated that a project would be developed for the Anchorage area, utilizing 60 offenders in the first half of FY 99. The program would be implemented by January 1999. The Department spends $100 dollars a day for hard beds and $57 dollars a day for Community Residential Center (CRC) beds. He stressed that these beds need to be reserved for the most serious offenders. Less serious offenders could be put on electronic monitoring. He spoke in support of the legislation. He pointed out that high-risk offenders, such as domestic violence offenders, would not be considered for electronic monitoring. Offender fees will be considered. The only state personnel will be a probation officer to oversee the function of the program. He emphasized that the Department is not expecting to have any empty beds as a result of the legislation. The Department is well above its emergency caps for prisoner population in its facilities. Mr. Trivette stated that it costs approximately $1.42 per meal. There would be a savings of $4.26 dollars a day for each prisoner that is released. Representative Mulder estimated that 60 additional prisoners would cost the Department approximately $2.2 million dollars annually. He pointed out that the legislation would remove 60 prisoners from the system. He observed that prisoners are being shipped to Arizona. He maintained that there are real cost savings from the legislation. Mr. Trivette reiterated that the only time there will be any major savings is if a facility or wing of a facility can be closed. Representative Mulder stated that the average direct cost per institution is approximately $72 dollars a day. The indirect costs, such as inmate health care, programs; administrative support cost approximately $28 dollars a day per inmate. He maintained that there should be at least a $28 dollar a day savings. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the removal of 60 prisoners would reduce the number of prisoners sent to Arizona. Mr. Trivette acknowledged that cost savings would occur if fewer prisoners were sent out-of-state. He pointed out that the Department is very far over its caps. He did not think that there would be a reduction in the number of prisoners sent to Arizona. Co-Chair Hanley asked if the net cost of food was reduced in the fiscal note. Mr. Trivette did not know. Co-Chair Hanley observed that there would be a total savings of $100 thousand dollars per year. Representative Mulder stressed that the Governor's Criminal Justice Task Force strongly supported electronic monitoring as a way to relieve overcrowding in the system. The Task Force unanimously endorsed the concept of having the private provider provide the service. They envisioned that prisoners would pay one hour of their wage per workday to support the program. The cost of the program would be paid for by the inmate support. Representative Mulder MOVED to amend the Department of Corrections' fiscal note by shifting the fund source from pure general fund dollars to general fund program receipts. Mr. Trivette stated that the Department supports paying for the program through program receipts. He did not think it was realistic to expect the program to be totally funded through program receipts. He pointed out that programs in other states are not wholly supported through program receipts. He stated that the Department would look at programs in other states. Representative Davies MOVED to amend the amendment by retaining the personal services line in the general fund line. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. There being NO OBJECTION, the Committee adopted an amended House Finance Committee fiscal note for the Department of Corrections: $30 thousand dollars for personal services in general funds and $100.3 thousand dollars in general fund program receipts for FY 99; and $60 thousand dollars for personal services in general funds and $195.6 thousand dollars in general fund program receipts for FY 00 - FY 04. Representative Davies provided members with Amendment 1 (copy on file). He expressed concern that prisoners that do not have resources not be excluded from participating in the program. Amendment 1 would add "but only if the commissioner determines that the prisoner has sufficient financial resources to pay the costs or a portion of the costs" on line 28, page 3. Co-Chair Hanley expressed concern that the amendment would provide a statutory defense for prisoners that does not want to pay. Representative Davies stated that the determination to pay could be made based on their public defender circumstance. Representative Martin spoke against the amendment. Representative Davies MOVED to amend the amendment, by deleting " the commissioner determines that". He argued that the current language provides that a prisoner either pay all of the cost of 50 percent of the cost. He emphasized that some prisoners may not be able to pay 50 percent of the cost. There being NO OBJECTION, the amendment was amended to state "but only if the prisoner has sufficient financial resources to pay the costs or a portion of the costs". Mr. Logan emphasized that contractors could setup a program to allow indigents to be subsidized from the portion paid by other prisoners. He observed that there are cases where an indigent prisoner would be a great prospect for electronic monitoring. Representative Davies emphasized that the first question is how much of the cost is each inmate expected to pay. The second question is how much is an indigent expected to pay. Co-Chair Therriault stated that his intent was that most prisoners pay 100 percent and that some prisoners pay less or nothing. Representative Davies reiterated that the intent of the amendment is to clarify that indigents would not be eliminated from participating in the program based on their inability to pay. Representative Martin OBJECTED to Amendment 1. He felt that the amendment was confusing. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Kelly, Moses, Mulder, Davies, Grussendorf, Foster, Hanley OPPOSED: Kohring, Martin, Therriault Representative Davis was absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (3-7). Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 272 out of Committee with the accompanying revised fiscal note. CSHB 272 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the House Finance Committee for the Department of Corrections.