HOUSE BILL NO. 484 An Act imposing a correctional facility surcharge on persons convicted of a crime under state law, and on persons whose probation is revoked; relating to fees and expenses for interstate transfer of probation or parole; and providing for an effective date. PORTIA PARKER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, stated that HB 484 would impose a surcharge on persons convicted of an offense and on persons whose probation was revoked. The bill also requires that a person under State probation or parole supervision to pay an application fee for a requested transfer of that supervision to another state. She added that Alaska has an urgent need to mitigate the cost of the correctional facilities. The bill would impose a surcharge on a person who pleads guilty, nolo contendere, or is convicted of a crime if that person was arrested and taken to a correctional facility or sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The amount of the surcharge depends on the seriousness of the crime. Ms. Parker added that the bill would also impose a surcharge on a person placed on probation after conviction of a crime. The surcharge is collected only if the defendant's probation was revoked for a probation violation and that person was either arrested and taken to a correctional facility for the violation, or sentenced to prison for it. Ms. Parker stated that Alaska participates in the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision, which regulates the transfer of supervision for persons under State probation and parole. HB 484 would establish an application fee for persons under active probation or parole supervision who request an interstate transfer of supervision under the Compact. According to the Department of Corrections, the majority of other states already impose a fee for similar services. The legislation would require the applicant to post bond or deposit cash, which would be forfeited if the State has to escort the person back to Alaska for confined supervision. Vice Chair Meyer questioned how the dollar amount had been determined. Ms. Parker replied that the middle ground was chosen for booking fees. Some states charge a daily fee, with many other administrative charges imposed. The highest found was $250 dollars, so the Department believed that $100 dollar should be reasonable. Vice Chair Meyer asked how people with no income could be charged. Ms. Parker requested that someone else address the collection process and that there are people on line who could address that concern. She pointed out that wages can be garnished. TAPE HFC 04 - 81, Side A  Ms. Parker added that housing and medical needs are paid for by the State general fund and that working in the facilities could help pay for the $100 fine in the correctional facilities. Vice Chair Meyer asked if work in the facility was optional. Ms. Parker replied that it is. Representative Chenault pointed out that the Court System currently assesses charges for just about everything. He asked about the transferring process and how the fee was determined. Ms. Parker responded that the offender would have to make a request for a transfer to another state to be charged the fee and they would then be under the probation through an interstate contract. Representative Foster referenced the 32,000 yearly arrests. Ms. Parker explained that is the number of bookings. Representative Foster pointed out that there are only 600,000 people in the entire state. That amount would be a huge percent of the State's population. Ms. Parker advised that many are the same individual being rebooked. Representative Croft asked if the transfer would be charged for only one way. Ms. Parker clarified that there would be a charge for processing when they request to transfer out of state. That is the manner in which most other states handle it. If they were charged on entering into Alaska, they would be charged both an exiting from the other state and then again an entering fee. The $100 dollar fee would cover the request for processing and needs to be a bond, a $200 dollar bail bond. If the individual does not need to be retrieved, then the $200 dollars is refundable. Representative Croft recommended it would be better to charge them coming into state. In effect, there would be a double charge when transferring back to Alaska. Representative Foster believed it would be cheaper to get them out of the State. DIANE WENDLANDT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, offered to answer questions of the Committee. Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 484 (JUD) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS HB 484 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with "individual" recommendations and with a new zero note by the Alaska Court System, a new fiscal note by the Department of Corrections and fiscal note #1 by the Department of Law.