Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
03/13/2025 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB35 | |
| HB47 | |
| HB58 | |
| HB50 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 50 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 35-PRISONERS: ELECTRONIC DEVICE ACCESS/USE
8:15:46 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 35, "An Act relating to the use and
possession of electronic devices by prisoners." [Before the
committee, adopted as the working document on 2/25/25, was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 35, Version 34-
LS0355\I, C. Radford, 2/22/25 ("Version I").]
8:16:02 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT, as prime sponsor, gave a recap of the bill,
explaining that it would allow the commissioner [for the
Department of Corrections (DOC)] to set up policies and
procedures around the use of electronic tablets, which are
currently prohibited in Alaska's correctional system.
8:16:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX moved to adopt Amendment 3 to Version I,
labeled 34-LS0355\I.3, C. Radford, 3/3/25, which read:
Page 2, lines 3 - 5:
Delete "other than a level of basic cable
television service that is available as a substitute
for services that are broadcast to the public in the
community in which a correctional facility is located"
Insert "[OTHER THAN A LEVEL OF BASIC CABLE
TELEVISION SERVICE THAT IS AVAILABLE AS A SUBSTITUTE
FOR SERVICES THAT ARE BROADCAST TO THE PUBLIC IN THE
COMMUNITY IN WHICH A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY IS
LOCATED]"
REPRESENTATIVE HALL objected.
8:16:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX explained that Amendment 3 would delete
subparagraph (C) on page 2, lines 3-5 of Version I.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT clarified that the proposed amendment would
not insert substitute language, despite the language on lines 5-
8 of Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX agreed.
8:18:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND shared his understanding that "cable
television service" would remain in subparagraph (C) if
Amendment 3 were to pass, which would prohibit the use of cable
television (TV) in DOC facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX responded yes, that is the intent. He asked
for the department's input on the proposal.
8:20:07 AM
APRIL WILKERSON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), agreed that Amendment 3 would eliminate all TV services
within the correctional facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX opined that TV programs condone antisocial
behavior. He asked what else is available for entertainment in
the individual cells.
8:21:57 AM
MS. WILKERSON relayed that basic TV services are provided to the
offender population within their cells. In general housing
areas, basic cable is also provided with limited channels. The
TV services are paid through the Inmate Welfare Fund IIWF), not
with state dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX recognized that this would be a big change
and asked whether there were alternative entertainment options
available that could be more "profitable" to the inmates.
MS. WILKERSON offered to follow up with the requested
information.
8:25:01 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:25 a.m.
8:26:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX moved to table Amendment 3.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT objected.
8:26:58 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Prax and Ruffridge
voted in favor of tabling Amendment 3. Representatives Hall,
Holland, and Himschoot voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3
was not tabled by a vote of 2-3.
8:28:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HALL maintained her objection to Amendment 3.
8:28:14 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Prax voted in favor
of Amendment 3. Representatives Ruffridge, Hall, Holland, and
Himschoot voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a
vote of 1-4.
8:29:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX moved to adopt Amendment 4 to Version I,
labeled 34-LS0355\I.5, C. Radford, 2/28/25, which read:
Page 3, lines 21 - 27:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 3, lines 30 - 31:
Delete ", and AS 33.30.015(f), enacted by sec. 2
of this Act, apply"
Insert "applies"
REPRESENTATIVE HALL objected.
8:29:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX explained that Amendment 4 would delete
subsection (f) under Section 2 of Version I and reasoned that
the commissioner is more equipped to decide how the tablets are
used and what services they provide.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said he is inclined towards keeping
subsection (f) to encourage more interactions and pathways
towards successful transitions post release.
8:32:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE opined that subsection (f) is
concerning due to components regarding existing programs or
services provided for the purpose of rehabilitation. He stated
that the subsection is restrictive and would limit the
commissioner's ability to provide options for incarcerated
people. Nonetheless, he expressed uncertainty as to whether
deleting the language in its entirety would be the right
approach.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL maintained her objection.
8:33:45 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Prax voted in favor
of Amendment 4. Representatives Ruffridge, Hall, Holland,
Mears, and Himschoot voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4
failed by a vote of 1-5.
8:34:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX moved to adopt Amendment 5 to Version I,
labeled 34-LS0355\I.6, C. Radford, 3/3/25, which read:
Page 3, lines 23 - 27:
Delete "To the extent practicable, the
commissioner may not replace an existing program or
service provided to a prisoner for the purpose of
rehabilitation with the use of a computer or
electronic tablet authorized under (a)(3)(I) of this
section. A computer or electronic tablet may be used
only to supplement an existing program or service."
Page 3, lines 30 - 31:
Delete "and AS 33.30.015(f), enacted by sec. 2 of
this Act, apply"
Insert "applies"
REPRESENTATIVE HALL objected.
8:34:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX explained that if Amendment 5 were to pass,
the commissioner would still be prohibited from replacing in-
person visitations with the use of an electronic computers or
tablets, but they would be able to eliminate programs they
deemed obsolete.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND considered a conceptual amendment that
would remove the last sentence from Amendment 5 to address
Representative Ruffridge's concerns.
8:37:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE pointed out that amending Amendment 5
as such would keep the language in Version I because it would
delete language from a deletion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND conceded he would not pursue the
conceptual amendment further.
8:38:49 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:38 p.m.
8:39:49 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT considered an example of sex offender group
therapy and said she would not want in-person programming to be
offered virtually in the future. She questioned the purpose of
Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said the intent is to empower the
commissioner to make that decision as opposed to the
legislature.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT sought to confirm that if Amendment 5 were to
pass, the legislature would make that call.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX clarified that the proposed amendment would
allow the commissioner, not the legislature, to make decisions
on programming.
8:43:08 AM
MS. WILKERSON said the department would utilize the tablets to
enhance existing practices and identify efficiencies. She said
the goal is to utilize technology to provide services across the
state.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT shared her understanding that Amendment 5
would take away the commissioner's discretion. She commented
that without working in these facilities and having first-hand
knowledge of the offender population, the commissioner is in a
better position to make decisions. For that reason, she stated
her opposition to Amendment 5.
8:45:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE disagreed with Co-Chair Himschoot's
assessment of Amendment 5. He explained that Version I would
take away the commissioner's authority to replace an existing
program or service provided to a prisoner for the purpose of
rehabilitation with the use of a computer or electronic tablet.
By deleting that section, Amendment 5, would maintain the
commissioner's authority to make these decisions and remove
language that would be better left out of statute, he opined.
8:47:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND restated his interest in deleting the
last sentence [on line 5 of Amendment 5] from the bill, which
would seemingly remove flexibility and block the ability for a
computer or tablet to be used for something new in the future.
He shared his belief that the language [that Amendment 5 seeks
to delete] would create barriers to innovation and new
programming that would not serve the legislature's intent.
8:50:01 AM
CO-CHAIR MEARS said her intent is to avoid replacing in-person
programming with a tablet for lower cost or convenience, for
example, which may not be captured by the existing language.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT said it sounds like the committee is in
support of Amendment 5. She spoke to the importance of
supplementing, not replacing, in-person visitation with
electronic tablets.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL removed her objection. There being no
further objected, Amendment 5 was adopted.
8:51:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Version
I, labeled 34-LS0355\I.1, C. Radford, 2/25/25, which read:
Page 2, lines 8 - 13:
Delete all material and insert:
"(A) possess in the prisoner's cell a
cassette tape player or recorder, [A] video cassette
recorder (VCR), telephone, or computer or electronic
tablet [OR A COMPUTER OR MODEM OF ANY KIND];"
Page 3, lines 10 - 17:
Delete all material and insert:
"[(I) USE A COMPUTER OTHER THAN THOSE
APPROVED BY THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; THE USE OF A
COMPUTER UNDER THIS SUBPARAGRAPH MAY BE APPROVED ONLY
AS PART OF THE PRISONER'S EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, OR
VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE;]"
Page 3, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "authorized under (a)(3)(I) of this
section"
REPRESENTATIVE HALL objected.
8:51:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that Amendment 1 would
prohibit the possession of tape players/recorders, video
cassette recorders (VCR), telephones, or computers/tablets
inside the prisoner's cell. In addition, it would essentially
give the commissioner the ability to govern how tablets are used
within DOC facilities, as long as they are not in the prisoner's
cell.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT sought to confirm that the goal of Amendment
1 is to give the commissioner greater latitude.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE said the goal is provide greater
latitude by deleting subparagraph (I), which is overly
prescriptive.
8:57:14 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT asked Ms. Wilkerson to explain what a cell
is.
MS. WILKERSON said general housing, termed "dorms," is one room
with many beds, whereas housing mods are where the individual
cells are located. She shared her understanding that the
tablets could be utilized in general housing, but not in the
housing mods.
CO-CHAIR MEARS sought to confirm that inmates in the dorms have
more freedom than those in the mods.
MS. WILKERSON answered yes.
9:00:46 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT asked for the practical impact of Amendment
1.
MS. WILKERSON said the ability to use a tablet in a segregated
cell, for example, would be beneficial because it could expand
program participation.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT shared her understanding that removing
subparagraph (I) would leave tablet use to the discretion of the
commissioner.
MS. WILKERSON responded yes; however, the commissioner would
still be required to follow the regulatory process per line 16,
of subparagraph I.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT pointed out that Amendment 1 would delete
subparagraph I entirely.
9:03:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE re-explained the amendment, stating
that by removing subparagraph (I), it would repeal current
statute. He added that in his research for the bill, he found
that Alaska is the only state that requires a statutory change
to allow for the use of electronic devices. He gave further
background and opined that by allowing tablet use in cells, it
may further isolate inmates who choose to watch movies on their
device if that were allowed. By granting the commissioner
greater authority, he said Amendment 1 would allow governance on
these policies.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT asked whether the commissioner would have the
ability to turn the tablets off and on and further regulate
their usage.
MS. WILKERSON answered yes, the commissioner has that ability in
the existing pilot program. She explained that the tablets do
not work outside the general housing area and the department has
the ability to turn them off and on. She welcomed the
flexibility offered by Amendment 1, as it would provide greater
efficiency without seeking a statutory change.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT sought to clarify whether movies or games are
allowed on the tablets.
MS. WILKERSON stated that currently, movies or games are not
allowed on the tablets. She explained that corrections vendors
sell games and movies so if this policy were to change in the
future, this revenue generating aspect could help offset the
cost of tablets to the state.
9:11:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked whether prohibiting the use of
computers in the prisoner's cell would also prohibit the use of
gaming consoles.
MS. WILEKRSON said the department would seek guidance from the
Department of Law (DOL) but assured the committee that these
consoles are purchased from corrections vendors and provide no
access to the Internet.
9:13:44 AM
CO-CHAIR MEARS returned to the first part of Amendment 1, which
would prohibit the use of tablets in the prisoner's cell.
Because certain inmates are confined to individual cells for
various reasons, she said she would not be supporting the
amendment.
9:14:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND sought to clarify the intent of Amendment
1.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE said the intent is not to eliminate the
use of tablets in the dorms, but instead, to prohibit their
usage in cells because of the reasons already stated. He asked
what is currently allowed in segregation.
MS. WILKERSON noted that there are various levels of
segregation. A person who is housed in segregation is not
participating in programming and is separated from the general
population. They are allowed one hour of recreation time per
day and may or may not be allowed access to books and a phone.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked why the committee would want to
insert a tablet into that environment.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT asked whether books are allowed in
segregation.
MS. WILKERSON said books are allowed, but it depends on each
person's situation and circumstance.
9:21:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HALL maintained her objection.
9:21:39 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Prax and Ruffridge
voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Holland, Hall,
Mears, and Himschoot voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1
failed by a vote of 2-4.
9:22:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE moved to adopt Amendment 2 to Version
I, labeled 34-LS0355\I.2, C. Radford, 2/25/25, which read:
Page 3, lines 18 - 20:
Delete ";
(4) allow a state correctional facility
operated by the state to charge a fee for electronic
mail or electronic visitation services"
Page 3, line 30:
Delete "AS 33.30.015(a)(4), enacted by sec. 1 of
this Act, and"
Page 3, line 31:
Delete "apply"
Insert "applies"
CO-CHAIR MEARS objected.
9:22:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that Amendment 2 would delete
overly prescriptive language relating to fees for electronic
mail or electronic visitation and allow the department to
regulate this policy as needed.
9:24:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HALL asked about the fee structure.
MS. WILEKRSON said fees are set by the vendor; however, the
federal government implemented a regulatory change that limits
the fees associated with video visitation and phone calls
effective January 2025.
9:26:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HALL shared her understanding that currently,
there are no charges imposed on the inmate or their family.
MS. WILEKRSON said currently, video visitation is not provided
in DOC institutions. Instant messaging and emails are provided,
however, at a cost to the offender or their family. She added
that as of January, offenders are provided two agency paid phone
calls per month.
9:28:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE reported that video visitation is
currently capped at $0.11 to $0.13 per minute, which is a
significant reduction to previous rates, which were $15 to $18
for a twenty-minute phone call.
9:29:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND expressed concern that placing fees on
access could create detrimental barriers. For that reason, he
stated his opposition to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE pointed out that the tablet program,
its infrastructure, and the vendor services are expensive, and
the cost would either be passed on to the state or the
prisoner's family. He emphasized that if HB 35 were to pass,
tablets would not be handed out for free, so there would already
be a barrier to access.
MS. WILKERSON explained that if the bill were to pass, the
department would need to evaluate its options and work with the
vendor to determine the level of services and the associated
cost.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND shared his understanding that paragraph
(4) stands independent of the tablet program and is making a
statement on charging people for access to electronic mail and
electronic visitation services.
9:35:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked whether inmates currently have
access to email services and if so, whether they are charged a
fee.
MS. WILKERSON confirmed that there is a pilot email program at
Goose Creek Correctional Center (GCCC) and the fees are paid
entirely by the inmate or their family.
9:36:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE commented that although access is
important, he characterized the idea of offering these services
to prisoners for free as "strange." He said he struggled with
the idea of limiting DOC's ability [to charge a fee] because
everyone in life must pay for access to nice things. He
questioned why incarcerated individuals should be given the
right to pay nothing when he, for example, does not receive the
same privilege. He said the amendment would give discretion to
the commissioner on whether to enact a fee or not.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT pointed out that there is an
overrepresentation of incarcerated people who lack means and
struggle with mental health issues and may be spending up to 30
days in segregation. She said the purpose is to grant these
individuals access to services.
9:39:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HALL shared a personal anecdote about a friend
who was recently released from federal prison. She said she
struggled with the idea of making inmates pay for services if
they could help with personal or professional development. She
said she would be voting "no" for the reasons described.
CO-CHAIR MEARS maintained her objection.
9:41:36 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Prax and Ruffridge
voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Hall, Holland,
Mears, and Himschoot voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2
failed by a vote of 2-4.
9:42:15 AM
CO-CHAIR MEARS moved to report CSHB 35, Version 34-LS0355\I, C.
Radford, 2/22/25, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE objected.
9:42:32 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hall, Holland,
Mears, and Himschoot voted in favor of reporting CSHB 35,
Version I, as amended, out of committee. Representatives Prax
and Ruffridge voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 35(CRA) was
reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote
of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 35 Sponsor Statement - Version N 2.9.25.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 2/25/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 - Version N 1.5.25.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Work Draft CS - Version I 2.22.25.pdf |
HCRA 2/25/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Sectional Analysis - Version N 2.12.25.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 2/25/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 CS Explanation of Changes - Version I 2.24.25.pdf |
HCRA 2/25/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Fiscal Note - DOC-IDO 2.20.25.pdf |
HCRA 2/25/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Research - Technology to Support Reentry 2022.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 2/25/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Research - Technology Protects Inmate Mental Health 12.12.23.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 2/25/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Research - Technology Education Programs in Prisons 3.4.24.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 2/25/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Testimony - Received by 3.12.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Amendment One - I.1 - Ruffridge 2.25.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Amendment Two - I.2 - Ruffridge 2.25.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Amendment Three - I.3 - Prax 3.3.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Amendment Four - I.5 - Prax 2.28.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Amendment Five - I.6 - Prax 3.3.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 47 (34-LS0334-A) - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/24/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Version A.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/24/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Fiscal Note - DOA-OPA 3.7.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/24/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Fiscal Note - DOA-PDA 3.7.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/24/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Fiscal Note - EED-FSS 3.7.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/24/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Fiscal Note - JUD-ACS 3.7.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/24/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Fiscal Note - LAW-CJL 3.6.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/24/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 - Supporting Document, AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Materia....pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/24/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 - Research, IWF Report Update (What has Changed...).pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/24/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 - Research, IWF Report (How AI is being abused to create child sexual abuse imagery).pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/24/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Presentation - AI CSAM - Rep. Vance 3.11.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/24/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 (34-LS0334-A) - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/24/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 47 |
| HB 50 Sponsor Statement, version A.pdf |
HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/18/2025 8:00:00 AM SCRA 4/22/2025 1:30:00 PM SCRA 5/6/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB 50, version A.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/18/2025 8:00:00 AM SCRA 5/6/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB 50 Sectional Analysis, version A.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/18/2025 8:00:00 AM SCRA 4/22/2025 1:30:00 PM SCRA 5/6/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB 50 Fiscal Note - DOR-TAX 3.7.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/18/2025 8:00:00 AM SCRA 4/22/2025 1:30:00 PM SCRA 5/6/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB 50 Research - Alaska Department of Revenue Tax Division 2023 Charitable Gaming Annual Report.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/18/2025 8:00:00 AM SCRA 4/22/2025 1:30:00 PM SCRA 5/6/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB 58 ver. A Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/18/2025 8:00:00 AM SCRA 5/13/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 ver. A Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/18/2025 8:00:00 AM SCRA 5/13/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Fiscal Note - DOA-OPA 3.7.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/18/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Research - CH 55 SLA 1984.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/18/2025 8:00:00 AM SCRA 5/13/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Research - SB 312 Fiscal Analysis.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/18/2025 8:00:00 AM SCRA 5/13/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 58 SB 312 |
| HB 58 Research - DOA HFIN.SFIN SubCom OPA Presentation 2.27.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/18/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Presentation - Rep. Fields 3.11.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/18/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |
| HB 50 Testimony - Received by 3.17.25.pdf |
HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 50 |