Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
04/08/2025 03:15 PM House STATE 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 | |
| HB104 | |
| HB58 | |
| HB35 | |
| HB139 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 139 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 35-PRISONERS: ELECTRONIC DEVICE ACCESS/USE
3:51:21 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next 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 was
CSHB 35(CRA).]
3:51:58 PM
CHAIR CARRICK moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB 35(CRA),
labeled 34-LS0355\G.2, C. Radford, 3/31/25, which read as
follows:
Page 3, line 17:
Delete "[AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE]"
Insert "and may not be used for any other purpose
or as a substitution for in-person visitation,
receiving mail, receiving medical services, or other
in-person communication"
Page 3, lines 21 - 23:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion. She said
HB 35 pertains to new opportunities for inmates in Alaska's
correctional system by receiving certain services on tablets.
She talked about touring the Lemon Creek Facility; it is
noteworthy that in aging facilities there are portions of the
facility being built but not utilized for various reasons. She
said one of her concerns with the current legislation is that
devices could be substituted for in-person services. The
amendment specifies that tablets cannot be used as a substitute
for in-person visitation, receiving mail, receiving medical
services, or other in-person communication.
3:54:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that she understands the intent, but
she had questions regarding the wording. She asked if Amendment
1 would prohibit someone from having visitation from across the
state via the tablet.
CHAIR CARRICK replied no, it would not. She said if service is
not available, then it's possible to use the tablet. She
explained options and selected preferred form of visitation.
Currently, the Department of Corrections (DOC) cannot fly out
individuals for visitation, so this doesn't open the door.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that she appreciates putting this on
the record and wanted to make sure that the intent is clear that
it would allow options. She asked whether the commissioner
would still have the flexibility for security reasons to allow
visitation only via tablet, like during the COVID-19 pandemic.
She thinks DOC extended it longer than needed. She asked, "Does
the way it is written allow the Commissioner flexibility?"
3:58:56 PM
APRIL WILKERSON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
stated that the intent is to not prohibit and eliminate in-
person visitation. The understanding is if in-person visitation
was not available for various reasons, then the tablets would be
a viable option. These tablets would be a substitution on a
case-by-case basis.
CHAIR CARRICK said that is her understanding of the language and
intent.
4:00:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated this amendment was discussed
with DOC. These tablets are to supplement not supplant
services.
4:01:15 PM
CHAIR CARRICK removed her objection to Amendment 1 to CSHB
35(CRA). There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
4:01:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 2 to CSHB 35(CRA),
as amended, labeled 34-LS0355\G.3, C. Radford, 4/7/25, which
read as follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "prisoners":
Insert "; and relating to service of sentence by
electronic monitoring"
Page 3, following line 23:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 33.30.065(d) is amended to read:
(d) Other than a prisoner for whom payment is
required under (e) of this section, the [THE]
commissioner may require a prisoner designated to
serve a term of imprisonment or a period of temporary
confinement by electronic monitoring to pay all or a
portion of the costs of the electronic monitoring. The
commissioner may require payment under this subsection
[, BUT] only if the prisoner has sufficient financial
resources to pay the costs or a portion of the costs.
* Sec. 4. AS 33.30.065 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(e) The commissioner shall designate a prisoner
to serve the prisoner's term of imprisonment or period
of temporary commitment, or a part of the term or
period, by electronic monitoring provided by a private
contractor if
(1) the prisoner resides outside of an area
where electronic monitoring is provided by the
department;
(2) after considering the criteria listed
in (b) of this section, the commissioner determines
the prisoner is eligible for electronic monitoring;
and
(3) the prisoner pays all costs associated
with the electronic monitoring."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
4:01:41 PM
CHAIR CARRICK objected for purpose of discussion.
4:01:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said this is about addressing a gap. She
talked about this issue in her district with a constituent in
rehabilitation. He was well on the path to becoming a success
story. The department told him that he must move up to Kenai to
be in a service zone. Amendment 2 just clarifies that this
constituent would still be able to live in area and would not
need to uproot to a Department of Corrections service area.
This situation is impacting more than one individual, and she is
looking for a solution. She noted that the constituent appeared
in front of a judge to settle this situation, but the department
maintained that he needs to be in the service area. He must get
a new job, new place to live, and not be in his support network.
She said the proposed language would provide a solution for
people doing all the right things to become rehabilitated.
4:05:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE indicated that serving on a finance
subcommittee has shown him that electronic monitoring is a huge
cost for the Department of Corrections. He asked Ms. Wilkerson
why ankle monitoring is allowed in Kenai but not in Homer. He
added that he wondered if this decision pertains to the ability
to monitor or addresses the ability to enforce.
MS. WILKERSON responded that monitoring used to be available in
Homer but was eliminated because of a lack of resources to
respond timely and efficiently. The department is reevaluating
the electronic monitoring program with private monitoring and is
re-evaluating the situation and considering how to account for
time served on a private program.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked about a private contractor, such as
Life Alert, and whether this is what was being talked about with
private monitoring.
MS. WILKERSON replied that that is her understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented on payment responsibility and
asked if there is a contractor in place.
MS. WILKERSON replied there were a few private providers that
offer this service.
4:09:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND pointed to language regarding a "private
contractor" in [subsection (e)] on line 16 [as numbered in
Amendment 2], and he said that it sounds like there are already
private contractors in place. He questioned what Amendment 2
would add. He then asked whether there are existing controls in
place for who can be a private contractor.
4:11:04 PM
BOB BALLINGER, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska State
Legislature, confirmed that [private contracting] is already an
option. Amendment 2 would require the commissioner to do this
if certain requirements are met. To a follow-up question, he
confirmed the criteria is in place for approval by DOC.
4:13:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said this is straying away from what
the bill does. She questioned, if all of this is possible right
now, what would happen if someone were not where they are
supposed to be.
MR. BALLINGER replied that currently the constituent is being
monitored. He said he wanted to attend church. If they see him
somewhere he isn't supposed to be, it may be a parole violation.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether the local police
department will get involved if he gets picked up for violating
geographical restriction.
MR. BALLINGER replied it depends on the kind of violation. He
offered his understanding that a report would go to the parole
officer.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that different places have
different levels of concern. Just reporting might not be
adequate. She said she wants to see this as an actual bill but
not an amendment. She said although this is conceptually good,
she cannot support Amendment 2.
4:16:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked how current law addresses a
monitored person who steps outside allowed boundaries.
MS. WILKERSON said that depending on the violation, there would
be coordination with local law enforcement. In response to a
follow-up question, she confirmed that whether in Kenai or
Homer, if there were a private contractor, there would still be
police involvement for someone out of bounds.
4:17:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she understands this is to help with
re-entry, but she was confused regarding the language. She
asked what would happen if prisoners don't have the resources to
pay for it.
MR. BALLINGER, in response to Representative Story, said the
cost [of private monitoring] would be covered if someone were
not able to pay for it.
MS. WILKERSON added that currently DOC does waive some of fees
for electronic monitoring. It is limited to only the area with
resources that have been budgeted.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked what the cost might be. She said it
doesn't seem right that DOC would not try to provide this
service.
MS. WILKERSON replied that the current cost is about $66-$70 per
day per offender. He said he does not know the cost for private
contractors.
4:21:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said that he understands that electronic
monitoring is already allowed, this just says it shall be done.
Second, the prisoner will pay the costs, but without financial
resources they would not have to. Amendment 2 would allow
prisoners to live anywhere they want and the commissioner would
be required to provide them with a private monitoring service
wherever they reside. He said the required payment makes him
uncomfortable because it takes away the ability of the
commissioner to make decisions.
MR. BALLINGER said that under the amendment, when monitoring is
required, then the individual would pay for it themselves. He
said this is outlined in "the code section."
4:24:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked what the Department of Corrections
thinks of Amendment 2.
MS. WILKERSON said that the Department of Corrections is neutral
on Amendment 2. The department understands the circumstances,
but commissioner is adamant that partnerships are needed. In
response to a follow-up question, she went over the different
types of monitoring, including global positioning system (GPS)
and breathalyzers.
4:26:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE asked how many offenders are on electronic
monitoring (EM).
MS. WILKERSON replied that currently there are about 400
offenders. There are six locations for electronic monitoring.
To a follow-up question, she said currently there is one vendor
that rents equipment and provides monitoring services.
4:27:59 PM
CHAIR CARRICK asked if there was additional discussion. She
maintained her objection and said she would like to see the
subject of Amendment 2 addressed as a standalone bill.
4:28:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she appreciates the conversation. The
scope of bill is helping those after incarceration to have
successful re-entry. Amendment 2 would help expand outside the
Railbelt. She wants to help people who live outside the main
communities succeed. The commissioner has discretion. She said
making this consideration now is in scope of the bill.
4:33:08 PM
The committee took an at-ease at 4:33 p.m.
4:34:04 PM
CHAIR CARRICK said she appreciated the intent of the amendment
and hopes to explore the concept further. She maintained her
objection.
4:34:26 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Moore, Vance, and
McCabe voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Holland,
Himschoot, Story, and Carrick voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-4.
4:35:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to report CSHB 35(CRA), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes and to authorizes Legislative Legal
Services to make any necessary or conforming changes.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
4:36:08 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Story, Holland,
Himschoot, and Carrick voted in favor of the motion to report
CSHB 35(CRA), as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes and to
authorizes Legislative Legal Services to make any necessary or
conforming changes. Representatives Moore, McCabe and Vance
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 35(STA) was reported out of
the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 139 Sponsor Statement version A.pdf |
HSTA 4/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 139 |
| HB 139 Ver A.pdf |
HSTA 4/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 139 |
| HB 139 Sectional Analysis version A.pdf |
HSTA 4/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 139 |
| HB 139 Fiscal Note OOG-HSE-4-03-25.pdf |
HSTA 4/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 139 |
| HB 139 Research FY 26 OMB Governor's House.pdf |
HSTA 4/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 139 |
| HB 35 HSTA Amendments 4-8-25.pdf |
HSTA 4/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 35 |