ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE  April 8, 2025 3:18 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Ashley Carrick, Chair Representative Andi Story, Vice Chair Representative Rebecca Himschoot Representative Ky Holland Representative Sarah Vance Representative Kevin McCabe Representative Elexie Moore MEMBERS ABSENT  All members present OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT Representative Zack Fields Senator Robert Myers COMMITTEE CALENDAR  HOUSE BILL NO. 104 "An Act creating and relating to the address confidentiality program; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD & HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 58 "An Act relating to the office of public advocacy; and relating to the public advocate." - MOVED HB 58 OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 35 "An Act relating to the use and possession of electronic devices by prisoners." - MOVED CSHB 35(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 139 "An Act relating to renting the governor's mansion; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD & HELD PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION  BILL: HB 104 SHORT TITLE: ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY PROGRAM SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MEARS 02/14/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 02/14/25 (H) STA, FIN 03/11/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 03/11/25 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard 03/25/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 03/25/25 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard 03/27/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 03/27/25 (H) 04/08/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 BILL: HB 58 SHORT TITLE: OPA: PUBLIC ADVOCATE APPOINTMENT SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FIELDS 01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 01/22/25 (H) CRA, STA 03/11/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124 03/11/25 (H) Heard & Held 03/11/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 03/13/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124 03/13/25 (H) Heard & Held 03/13/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 03/18/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124 03/18/25 (H) Moved HB 58 Out of Committee 03/18/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 03/21/25 (H) CRA RPT 4DP 1NR 03/21/25 (H) DP: HOLLAND, HALL, HIMSCHOOT, MEARS 03/21/25 (H) NR: PRAX 03/27/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 03/27/25 (H) Heard & Held 03/27/25 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/29/25 (H) STA AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120 03/29/25 (H) Heard & Held 03/29/25 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/08/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 BILL: HB 35 SHORT TITLE: PRISONERS: ELECTRONIC DEVICE ACCESS/USE SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HIMSCHOOT 01/22/25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/25 01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 01/22/25 (H) CRA, STA 02/20/25 (H) CRA AT 9:00 AM BARNES 124 02/20/25 (H) Heard & Held 02/20/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 02/25/25 (H) CRA AT 9:00 AM BARNES 124 02/25/25 (H) Heard & Held 02/25/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 02/27/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124 02/27/25 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard 03/13/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124 03/13/25 (H) Moved CSHB 35(CRA) Out of Committee 03/13/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 03/14/25 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 3DP 3AM 03/14/25 (H) DP: HALL, MEARS, HIMSCHOOT 03/14/25 (H) AM: HOLLAND, PRAX, RUFFRIDGE 03/27/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 03/27/25 (H) Heard & Held 03/27/25 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/29/25 (H) STA AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120 03/29/25 (H) Heard & Held 03/29/25 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/08/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 BILL: HB 139 SHORT TITLE: RENT GOVERNORS MANSION SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STAPP 03/17/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 03/17/25 (H) STA, FIN 04/08/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE DONNA MEARS Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 104. TALIA EAMES, Staff Representative Donna Mears Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the prime sponsor, Representative Mears, provided a sectional analysis of HB 104. KEELEY OLSON, Executive Director Standing Together Against Rape Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 104. RANDY MCLELLAN, President Alaska Correctional Officers Association Eagle River, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 104. BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB 104. APRIL WILKERSON, Deputy Commissioner Department of Corrections Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB 35. Bob Ballinger, Staff Representative Sarah Vance Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB 35. REPRESENTATIVE WILL STAPP Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, provided an introduction to HB 139. BERNARD AOTO, Staff Representative Will Stapp Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis of HB 139 on behalf of Representative Stapp, prime sponsor. STUART RELAY, Staff Representative Ashley Carrick Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the fiscal note for HB 139. ACTION NARRATIVE 3:18:18 PM CHAIR ASHLEY CARRICK called the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:18 p.m. Representatives Moore, Vance, Holland, Himschoot, and Carrick were present at the call to order. Representatives McCabe and Story arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB 104-ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY PROGRAM  3:18:54 PM CHAIR CARRICK announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 104, "An Act creating and relating to the address confidentiality program; and providing for an effective date." 3:19:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE DONNA MEARS, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 104. There is a small but important group of people that have reasons to keep their addresses confidential including peace officers and victims of domestic violence, stalking, and those with protection orders. This bill allows people to participate in life without further endangering their families. This bill creates an address protection program where people can receive anonymous mail that is forwarded to their confidential address. 3:21:15 PM TALIA EAMES, Staff, Representative Donna Mears, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Mears, prime sponsor, provided a sectional analysis of HB 104 [included in the committee file], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Sec. 1: Adds the program to the duties of the Department of Administration. Sec. 2: Creates the program. (b)requires a Post Office Box as a substitute mailing address for enrollees and instructs the department to forward mail to participants. It charges the department with protecting confidentiality and requires regulations to govern enrollment and withdrawal. (c)describes eligible participants as people sheltered by a protective order and their parents, guardians, children, and household members. It also admits peace officers and correctional officers. (d)prevents registered sex offenders from enrolling in the program. (e)requires state and municipal agencies to accept the P.O. Box. (f)describes the eligibility period. (g)prevents the department from charging a fee. (h)allows access to confidential addresses subject to a search warrant. (i)establishes penalties for unlawfully revealing a protected individual's address. (j)defines certain terms. Sec. 3: Establishes a transition period for the department to adopt regulations to implement the program. Sec. 4: Lets the department begin promulgating regulations immediately. Sec. 5: Sets an effective date of Jan. 1, 2026 for the rest of the bill 3:23:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE MEARS said that this is in addition to other protections put in place for victims. She said that a post office box in a small town could be risky. 3:24:19 PM KEELEY OLSON, Executive Director, Standing Together Against Rape (STAR), testified in support of HB 104. She has been the Executive Director for the last 10 years. She stated this is a critical piece of legislation and STAR would welcome an address protection program. She highlighted her experiences in Alaska and Montana as a victim advocate. She said most states, at least 40, have these programs and have had them for decades. She described someone trying to escape a stalker and how they can make a safe move and keep their address confidential. She learned from Montana's program administrator that the state's program has cost a minimal amount per year to operate. Montana had 56 participants in the program. The costs were a portion of personnel costs. She talked about making the program available to law enforcement. She thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify in support of HB 104. 3:29:03 PM RANDY MCLELLAN, President, Alaska Correctional Officers Association, testified in support of HB 104. He described his work history of 28 years. He said threats and attacks on correctional officers are commonplace and officers are targets. Correctional officers are trained and encouraged to ensure their privacy. Their greatest fear is an offender who has made threats against them, particularly against their family. He shared when his own information was compromised and a violent inmate was making threats against him. He said that one day passing by his cell, the inmate slid him a printout of his personal information including his home address. This incident made him extremely fearful and overly cautious with his family. Alaska is one of a handful of states with no address protections in place for law enforcement. This bill would be a powerful tool to provide protection for law enforcement. 3:32:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked what happens when people still need to provide a physical address; he asked how this would work for someone enrolled in this program. REPRESENTATIVE MEARS replied this is just one of several protections; there are privacy protections built into other systems. MS. EAMES said that Section 2, [subsection] (e) makes it so state and municipal agencies would have to accept post office box use. She said there is a box that can be checked on voter registration that would keep things confidential. 3:34:16 PM CHAIR CARRICK asked how many states have something like this. MS. EAMES answered that the last thing she recalled was that there were five states that didn't have something along these lines. She said most of these states don't include this for peace officers. CHAIR CARRICK asked who is included typically under these programs. MS. EAMES answered that usually domestic violence victims, but deferred to another testifier to answer this better. 3:35:49 PM BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), proffered that most of the address confidentially protection programs don't cover peace officers - only victims of domestic violence. 3:36:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked about property owners in tax rolls. He gave an example of home ownership, but information can still be requested from the borough. He asked if someone would be able to be taken off tax rolls. MS. EAMES answered that this would not stop this situation. This program is more for people who are fleeing violence. She said that there would be a possibility of establishing a trust to register a home and certain municipalities do have programs established. 3:38:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked how many troopers, police officers, et cetera are in the state and how many are served by victim services. She said this sounds like a lifetime program and the state would be paying annually. She inquired about the maximum number of participants. REPRESENTATIVE MEARS replied that there are many different circumstances regarding this program. Some of the cases are shorter term and this wouldn't be a lifetime program. MS. EAMES said that those numbers were generated from other programs. Ms. Olson may be better able to answer this question. 3:41:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether, after six years, the program would cap out at 300 participants. She said she wants to understand the number relative to total number of peace officers and commented that it seems like the number would be higher. She asked whether it would be a lifetime program or whether there would be variability. MS. OLSON answered that after 17 years, Montana had only 68 people using the service. Generally, it was for specific purposes where there is a risk of an address becoming public. She believes it is probably time-sensitive, and many people may not use it due to the delay of the mail and convenience. 3:44:44 PM MS. EAMES clarified that the mail forwarding would be for pieces of mail that create an official record, such as enrolling kids in school. 3:46:09 PM CHAIR CARRICK announced that HB 104 was held over. HB 58-OPA: PUBLIC ADVOCATE APPOINTMENT  3:46:23 PM CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 58, "An Act relating to the office of public advocacy; and relating to the public advocate." 3:46:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to report HB 58 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 58 was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee. The committee took an at-ease from 3:47 p.m. to 3:51 p.m. 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. 04:36:59 PM The committee took an at-ease from 4:36 p.m. to 4:42 p.m. HB 139-RENT GOVERNORS MANSION  4:42:35 PM CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 139, "An Act relating to renting the governor's mansion; and providing for an effective date." 4:43:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILL STAPP, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 139. He said the purpose of the bill is to start looking at different programs the state utilizes for cost savings. He said the governor's mansion is an asset that the state funds. 4:44:45 PM BERNARD AOTO, Staff, Representative Will Stapp, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Stapp, prime sponsor, presented the sectional analysis for HB 139 [included in the committee file], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 1: Amends AS 44.19 (Office of the Governor) and adds a new section (AS 44.19.032) directing that the governor's mansion shall be rented on a short term basis when the legislature is not in session. Section 2: Sets an immediate effective date 4:45:38 PM CHAIR CARRICK asked Mr. Relay to do a quick overview of the fiscal note. 4:45:54 PM STUART RELAY, Staff, Representative Ashley Carrick, Alaska State Legislature, provided an overview of the fiscal note. This bill has an indeterminate fiscal note but provides an analysis [included in the committee file], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: This bill requires the Office of the Governor to rent the governor's mansion on a short-term basis when the legislature is not in session, and the governor has not reserved the mansion in advance. The Office of the Governor would be required to adopt regulations and establish a system for making the governor's mansion available for a person or an entity to rent and to collect the fee charged for renting the mansion. The fiscal impact of this legislation cannot be determined because occupancy by the Governor cannot reliably be determined in advance and the mansion must be available for the governor's use on short notice, both during and outside of the legislative session. Added costs associated with unsupervised occupancy would include staff time to communicate with the renter, to manage the bookings and to manage access to the building, increased insurance and maintenance cost that includes wear and tear on the facility and its furnishings, potential modifications to the historic building to ensure the privacy and security of the residents and staff, and to complete security sweeps after an event or occupancy of the building. 4:47:25 PM CHAIR CARRICK questioned limiting the legislation knowing that it must be available, and she asked why it would be rentable only on non-session days. REPRESENTATIVE STAPP replied the intent was to make it as least prescriptive as possible. He wanted it to be the least disruptive. He said, for example, that the governor's mansion could host weddings to generate revenue. He said he has no issue with amendments to monetize this asset. CHAIR CARRICK asked whether it is known how many days have been spent in Juneau at the mansion by governors while in office. REPRESENTATIVE STAPP said it varies by governor. He said that no governor in his lifetime has spent an entire year in Juneau. 4:49:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY pondered what the governor may think of the idea. REPRESENTATIVE STAPP said he mentioned it for a few years, and he indicated the response was, "We will see how it goes." REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked the bill sponsor to confirm that the response to the idea was to see how it goes. REPRESENTATIVE STAPP replied that he cannot remember the exact terminology that was used, but that was his interpretation. 4:51:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that when looking at the legislative assembly building the same discussion was had. At the end of day, the settlement was that if a legislator wants to store stuff there, then the legislator will pay a fee. He asked if the bill would require the removal of the governor's property. He asked, "How would this be done?" REPRESENTATIVE STAPP said that he left regulations up to the Office of Governor. It would be the least disruptive and prescriptive as possible. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that it is an interesting idea. He offered his understanding that all but four or five states have a governor's mansion. He asked whether this would be managed by the legislature or the governor. MR. AOTA confirmed that all but five states have a governor's mansion. Alabama, Michigan, New Jersey, and North Carolina have two state-owned residences for their executives. The language in bill would allow the Office of the Governor to manage the regulations. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked if any other states do this. MR. AOTA replied that in his research he did not find any other states. He said several states allow the executive residence to be used for special events with a rental fee. 4:55:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked if the vague fiscal note has been explored and why it wasn't done well. REPRESENTATIVE STAPP said that in his experience with fiscal notes, sometimes the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) writes fiscal notes like they don't like the idea. He hasn't had a chance to talk with the OMB. He said that he will explore it further. 4:56:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that she is feeling cranky about the fiscal notes; over time there is an inconsistency with fiscal notes. She looked at another historic house; Jorgenson house is rented $600-800 a night in the summertime. Also, they rent the place for events. If OMB needed assistance, it could calculate based off other rental portfolios. She talked about rental mechanics and asked whether there is full-time staff on property right now. MR. AOTA confirmed that is correct, there are now people on site that work in the governor's mansion. In fiscal year 2026 (FY 26), the budget for the mansion is $531,100 allocated for personal services for a resident manager, a chef, and two housekeepers. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that this fiscal note would increase insurance and maintenance costs. She asked if they have insurance for public events now and whether this insurance would cover rentals. REPRESENTATIVE STAPP said it depends on how they would craft regulations. The building does have insurance. He questioned what the chef does in a full-time position during the summer. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that she is a traditionalist and doesn't want to rent out the mansion. She raised concerns about fiscal notes and reiterated the desire for better crafted ones. Noting that this is key to whether legislation gets forward motion. 5:00:52 PM CHAIR CARRICK said that while the House State Affairs Standing Committee doesn't usually review fiscal notes closely, she agreed that the fiscal note was inadequate. 5:01:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY commented that as a representative in Juneau, she is proud of the capital building complex. The governor's mansion is historic; she wants to see it treated as a historic residence. It would be very important to protect the investment the state has in this piece of history. She stated that Juneau wants the governor, no matter what year, to feel welcome in the city. She is hesitant to support the bill. [HB 139 was held over.] 5:03:23 PM CHAIR CARRICK discussed upcoming committee scheduling and agenda. 5:03:45 PM ADJOURNMENT  There being no further business before the committee, the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:03 p.m.