CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 133(JUD) "An Act relating to requiring electronic monitoring as a special condition of probation or parole for offenders whose offense was related to a criminal street gang." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Co-Chair Stedman noted that the Committee had previously reported out SB 89-ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF GANG PROBATIONER, the Senate companion bill to this legislation. The sponsor of HB 133 would be providing an explanation of the differences between the two bills. 10:08:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE BOB BUCH, the bill's sponsor, stressed the importance of this bill: it "may be the difference between life and death for some of those people living in Anchorage." Both SB 89 and HB 133 would require people "convicted of violent gang related crimes to wear electronic monitoring devices" when released on probation or parole. Representative Buch addressed the differences between the two bills as follows. HB 133 is more narrowly focused than SB 89. SB 89 applies to offenders convicted of both misdemeanors and felonies. HB 133 applies only to offenders convicted of felonies. Because of this difference, HB 133 has a substantially lower fiscal note. SB 89 allows offenders to replace prison time with electronic monitoring. HB 133 does not allow offenders to replace prison time with electronic monitoring. HB 133 has a sunset provision. SB 89 has no sunset provision. HB 133 gives the Department of Corrections the receipt authority to collect funds from the offender to pay for the cost of electronic monitoring. HB 133 is the version that is supported by the Department of Corrections and the Department of Law. Representative Buch noted that people living in the Anchorage and Kenai areas and their police departments support this bill version. Representative Buch pointed out that HB 133's fiscal notes are similar to those accompanying SB 89 except they are "less expensive". For instance, the Department of Corrections' fiscal note accompanying SB 89 contained three different cost scenarios; the Department of Corrections fiscal note accompanying HB 133 is the least of those three. 10:11:17 AM In response to a question from Senator Thomas, Representative Buch clarified that, unlike SB 89, HB 133 would not allow a person to replace jail time with electronic monitoring. 10:11:55 AM Senator Olson asked whether there was any opposition to the bill. Representative Buch considered this a very serious piece of legislation. While it would have a fiscal impact, it has been tightly constructed to accommodate law enforcement requests. It has significant support from the communities of Anchorage, Kenai, and Fairbanks. Senator Olson commended the bill's sponsor for his efforts on the bill. 10:12:45 AM Co-Chair Hoffman asked whether gang-related crimes were an issue in other areas of the State besides Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Kenai. Representative Buch replied that other communities believe that addressing the gang-related crime activity that is being "expressly exhibited in Anchorage" would assist in preventing this type of activity from spreading to other areas of the State. The idea is to "nip it in the bud as early as possible." 10:13:24 AM Co-Chair Hoffman moved to report the bill from Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CS HB 133(FIN) was REPORTED from Committee with four previous fiscal notes: zero fiscal note #1 from the Department of Law; indeterminate fiscal note #2 from the Department of Administration; indeterminate fiscal note #3 from the Department of Corrections; and indeterminate fiscal note #4 from the Alaska Court System. 10:14:25 AM