Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 24 7 Program Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee narrows fee‑waiver authority for 24/7 program to pretrial, advances bill
Summary
The committee amended Senate Bill 23‑65 to limit judicial waiver of the 24/7 program fee largely to pretrial matters, adopted the amendment and gave the bill a due pass as amended for further handling.
The Judiciary Committee considered Senate Bill 23‑65, which concerns fee waivers for the 24/7 monitoring program. After hearing from legal staff and committee discussion, members adopted an amendment to limit waiver authority and advanced the bill.
Senator Brownberger explained the amendment after consulting with the Supreme Court: because some fees tied to post‑conviction judgments are mandatory under existing code, the practical option available is to limit judicial fee waivers to pretrial participation in the 24/7 program. “The only recommendation that they provided is that we would only waive it for, pretrial is the only option that they really saw,” Brownberger said, summarizing the court's advice.
Committee members questioned fiscal consequences; Senator Castaneda asked whether a fiscal note could be estimated if the waiver were limited to pretrial. Members noted that only one jurisdiction reported difficulty and other jurisdictions handle the costs through bond or other means. Committee discussion also addressed whether participants found not guilty after completing a program should be reimbursed; members said processes for that were not specified in the bill.
Senator Kesten moved the amendment (identified in committee as version 25.1351.01001), which was seconded and adopted. The sponsor moved a due‑pass recommendation as amended; the motion carried and Chair Larson announced the result. Senator Brownberger agreed to carry the bill forward for further consideration.
The amendment narrows the bill's scope to avoid conflict with mandatory post‑conviction fee provisions and leaves potential fiscal implications for jurisdictions unclear; members asked for further monitoring and potential follow‑up in subsequent sessions.
