Alaska Legislature: House Finance, 5/4/26, 4pm

Okay, House Finance back on record at 4:01 PM. And just giving a heads up to the public that may be watching that we are— once we get our full cadre of finance members, we will be going back to our amendment process, which is we're on Amendment Number 3. We'll be taking that up. They'll be moving that. And we are on Senate Joint Resolution 29, which is proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to a public education fund.

Fund. And we just have a few more people that will be coming in here. And once we have the last amendments— this is the third amendment of three— I will entertain whether or not the committee is interested in moving the bill. And then after that, we do have two more bills. We'll be doing five amendments for Senate Bill 86, and that is the money transmission and virtual currency bill.

And then at the end, we will be doing— we'll be walking through House Bill 104. That is the confidentiality— Address Confidentiality Program bill.

It is very possible that we may be adjourning at 5 o'clock also, so we may not get through all of that. But as the time draws near, we'll get a sense of how things are looking. So I'm going to take an at ease and just wait for the rest of our members to come in. I think we just have 2 more and just want to let the public know that we're still on Senate Joint Resolution 29, which is a constitutional amendment for educational funding. And so we'll come back to at ease.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 4:04 PM, and just a moment ago I kind of announced, um, the remainder of the day. I think the big issue there is we have a number of folks who may not be able to stay through the evening, so we might shoot to try to get out by 5. So that gives us about an hour. We do have Senate Joint Resolution 29, constitutional amendment, educational funding. We've got one amendment left, then we got 5 amendments for the next bill, which is SB 86, the virtual currency, and then an introduction to 104, HB 104, and that is the confidentiality program.

So we're going to jump right into it. Representative Bynum, would you like to make a motion to introduce Amendment Number 3? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move Amendment Number 3. Okay, and we have an objection.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, uh, Co-Chair Foster. Amendment Number 3, uh, does something very specific. What it does is it basically mimics what we did in the Constitution for our natural resources revenues, specifically that there's a 25% requirement to be deposited into the permanent fund. But what this does is it does something beyond that in the sense that it still takes all of those revenues that are supposed to go to the permanent fund and it doesn't disrupt that.

It just says that any additional funds that are left over after we do that, that we take and dedicate those funds to this education fund. Education, as we know, is constitutionally required. It's a constitutional requirement. It is one of the largest expenditures that we have in the state outside of health and welfare. And what I wanted to make sure that we did is that we do a couple things here.

We know that when we invest money directly from revenues into the permanent fund through our constitutional requirement, that that creates a public pressure to want us to have development of our resources. And, and I think that's valuable. What this amendment is doing is, is it's saying that from a new resource that we develop, specifically a major gas line project, that instead of taking these additional revenues that are flowing to the general fund, that we take and we direct them directly to this education fund. Or at least 75% of them. Right now, I saw that the projections on the gas line is somewhere in the realm of $700 million of revenue that would be forecasted for the line on a year-after basis.

At least that's the most that I've seen that that projection will show. In the future, we don't know what other kind of additional revenues we could get from a gas line, but I would encourage or hope that we could expand that in a significant way. So, one moment here.

The— basically what this amendment would do is that it would dedicate over— it would dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars or over $400 million if those gains are truly realized. Now the question is, is why put it into the Constitution? And I'm putting this into the Constitution because year after year we talk about wanting to have a dedicated streaming source of revenue into the education, and this will do that.

When— what we do right now is we appropriate money. We appropriate money by a statutory formula. This doesn't take away from that, but it does direct a specific amount of money, and it does create a desire to see that development of, of gas in Alaska for the benefit of Alaska, but also for the benefit of our schools. That's what this amendment does. Okay.

Thank you very much. Also, if I could have Mr. Gruessendorf come back up just in case we've got questions. Representative Stout. Yeah. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

So reluctantly, I am not going to be in support of the amendment. A couple of reasons. Number one, as I kind of mentioned earlier in the committee, it does. It is much more efficient just to deposit the earnings of your gas royalty or production tax or whatever type of revenue sources that you have into the permanent fund and then appropriate the money out of the permanent fund as we do currently rather than direct a dedicated earmark in the Constitution. It's, to me, the argument's actually not dissimilar to not wanting to be super prescriptive.

Also, in the language of the amendment, it says, substantial adjacent infrastructure. I don't know what that means. It has a gas pipeline and substantial adjacent infrastructure, and my fear would be if you put substantial adjacent infrastructure into the Constitution, that might be a lot of things that we haven't thought about yet. So I'm going to be a no, but appreciate the maker of the amendment for looking at a stable and reliable funding source for education. Further discussion?

Okay. Mr. Gruessendorf, thoughts? No, not through the chair, no. I'll let the committee decide what they want to do. Okay.

Representative Hannan? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. And I do appreciate the members' efforts to make sure if we're establishing a fund that there is a substantive amount of money going to it. But I am going to oppose the amendment, and primarily because I think it's too specific to add into the Constitution how it's funded. I think first we need the authority from the voters to fund it.

Secondly, I think it might imply that there is a— to voters that it's somehow tied to support of a gas line being created, and that if we don't create that as a revenue source, that we can't add other revenues. And I don't want that to be perceived. Now, I think if the gas line that we were talking about comes online and has a generous amount of extra revenue to the state and a future legislature decides to either amend and specify it or just on a periodic basis take that revenue and put it into endowment fund, I think those are separate decisions. But I want to— I want to make sure that when voters are talking and thinking about voting on a constitutional amendment, that it's not tied to another thing being the critical feature. They only support it if it's gas line revenue.

They only support it if the revenue comes from a set location. So I'm not opposed to revenue from the gas line going to an education endowment, but I am not going to support the amendment at this point to amend the Constitution that we are— constitutional amendment we're being proposed to put before the voters to tie those two together.

Further discussion? Wrap up. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. And again, I'll just clarify that right now we spend $1.5 billion on education, or in the request that I hear coming from the legislature, from teachers and parents, is that we spend even more than that.

Projected revenue from the current gas line that we are having a big debate about and a desire to see in Alaska right now has a projected revenue of about $700 million and potentially could be more, especially if we see additional development, which is what I'd like to see us encourage us to do. This doesn't take away from Amendment 2 that was passed. Amendment 2 allows us to take taxes and fees and direct those into an education fund, and it doesn't persuade us from— or it prevents us from, when we dedicate them for that purpose, that the legislature can't then take and remove those funds. So I brought this forward to make sure that we have a sizable, substantial, continuous revenue source for education that doesn't just fully depend upon what's coming from the earnings of oil or from the earnings of our permanent fund. Appreciate your support on Amendment 3.

Okay, Representative Stepp, do you maintain your objection? I maintain my objection. Okay, the objection is maintained. Madam Clerk, if you could call the roll on Amendment Number 3. Representative Moore?

No. Representative Hannan? No. Representative Allard? No.

Representative Galvin? No. Representative Bynum? Yes. Representative Jimmy?

No. Representative Tomaszewski? Yes. Representative Stapp? No.

Representative Schraggy? No. Representative Josephson? No. Representative Foster?

No. 2 Yea, 9 nay. On a vote of 2 yea and 9 nay, Amendment Number 3 has not been adopted. So that is the completion of our amendment process. And if it is the will of the committee, I would ask if there is a motion to move the resolution from committee.

Co-chair Foster, I move Senate Joint Resolution 29, Record 34-LS1570/A, out of committee as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. We have an objection. Representative Steff, would you like to speak to your objection? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, Mr. Co-Chair Foster, geez, it's been a long day, right?

Um, yeah, look, I'm going to lift my objection after a talk, but I mean, just on a structural level, I have the— I talked earlier in the, the hearings about how I, um, went out and I read the minutes from the Constitutional Convention, and I can tell you that it is incredibly clear that the fathers of Alaska's constitution repeatedly rejected constitutional earmarks. Education was treated as a constitutional duty and intentionally not a fiscal formula with a dedicated fund. Our framers wanted a short and flexible constitution. And perhaps the most telling thing about Alaska's constitutional convention is no delegate proposed a dedicated fund for education at the time that the state wrote its constitution. I understand that things change over time, but I just say I'm going to err on the side of the folks who kind of started this process of our 49th state, had a very good understanding of this issue, and they rejected constitutional dedicated funds for a reason.

Thanks. With that, I remove my objection. Your objection is removed. Representative Bynum, would you like to object? Okay.

Representative Bynum. Thank you. Objecting for the purpose of the discussion here. I could have had my friend from Fairbanks to hold on to that for a minute and I could have gave my comment. But, you know, I think the— I think that the concept behind SJR 29 is not a bad concept.

I think it just codifies in the— with the vote of the people something into the Constitution that we're already doing and required. I would have some concerns. You know, I've listed some of the concerns that I've had with what it may or may not do and what the legislature could or couldn't do. But ultimately, they can do those things pretty much right now anyway.

The expense and cost of what we have for our current education system and future education system is— it's a big lift for the state. And I can't foresee anything that we're gonna be able to do to create an endowment, at least at this point, when we take this up and we put it to the voters, that we would have an endowment big enough to support education. But maybe in 50 or 60 years, there'll be additional resources that have been brought online or growth in our economy that would allow us to do that. And so I think it's not a bad idea to potentially have that available. And ultimately, this is giving the voters a choice.

So I'm not going to oppose it. I actually, you know, the more I think about it, the more I actually like the idea of giving us that opportunity to have it available. I don't know if legal is still on the phone, but I did have one more quick question before we, we have this going, if that's okay. Representative Bynum, Ray Marks is on the line. Thank you, Ms. Marks.

Amendment number 2 talked about allowing dedicated revenue sources for taxes and fees. In Amendment 3, we were talking about royalties being directed toward this fund. Does Amendment 2 allow the legislature to dedicate royalties to the education fund? Ms. Marks? Yeah, remarks, Legislative Legal Services, through the chair to Representative Bynum.

Yes, if the legislature in the future has a major gas pipeline project and wishes to appropriate those royalties, they could appropriate those royalties. If instead they establish a dedication of revenue by law, then the Amendment 2 that passed would allow that dedication of revenue directly into the education fund if that is the will of the legislature. Okay, thank you. Um, with that, I'll withdraw my, um, or my, um, objection. Thank you.

Object. Uh, Representative Ballard, would you like to speak to your objection? Um, Yeah, I have some notes here if you don't mind. So I have a little bit of concern in regards to the dedicated funds and reduce the legislature's flexibility under Alaska constitutional structure, and the prohibition of dedicated funds exists precisely to preserve broad legislative discretion over the budget.

I also have concerns about the Constitution and its structure to give the legislature near total budget authority, which is unusual in most states. This would take that away, so it's concerning to me. And yeah, I just keep my objection there. Thank you. Further discussion?

Seeing none, the objection is maintained. And this is for the amendment to— I mean, the motion to move the bill from committee. Madam Clerk, if you could please call the roll. Representative Jimmy. Yes.

Representative Bynum. Yes. Representative Stapp. Yes. Representative Moore.

No. Representative Allard. No. Representative Hannan. Yes.

Representative Tomaszewski. Representative Galvin. Yes. Representative Josephson. Yes.

Representative Schrag. Yes. Representative Foster. Yes. 8 Yea, 3 nay.

Vote of 8 yea to 3 nay. Senate Joint Resolution 29, which is version 34-LS1570/A, moves out of committee as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Uh, Mr. Gruen— Gruesendorf, any final words before we take a brief at ease? Through the chair, I just want to thank you, the finance members, for hearing this bill and putting some time into it. And I think the bill's a better bill coming out of committee.

Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. So if we could pass out the committee report and have everyone sign that, and then we'll switch over to the next bill. And so we'll take a brief at ease. Brief at ease.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 4:21 PM. And before us is Senate Bill 86. That is the money transmission and virtual currency bill. I'd like to invite up Senator Keele as well as his staff, Ms. Aurora Hawk. If you could please put yourselves on the record, give us a recap of the bill, and then we'll move into the 5 amendments that we have for the bill.

So with that, welcome back, Senator Keele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, co-chairs, and members of the House Finance Committee. For your records, I am Jesse Keel, and I get to be the senator for Senate District B. With me is Aurora Hawk of my staff. We'll try the short recap and see if members need more detail.

This bill is sometimes called the Money Services Business Modernization Act. It updates and modernizes Alaska's money services licensees, license laws, so that's money transmitters, currency exchangers, to a conference of state bank supervisors model that was collaboratively worked out with bank examiners from red states, blue states, purple states, and industry, all at the table. It updates Alaska's laws to this new model, which is more efficient, more effective, and definitely better written for the modern day of electronic money transmission rather than our previous laws, which were all written before there was such a thing as Venmo. The bill also includes virtual currency. So most of us think of cryptocurrency under that framework.

It assures basic safety and soundness protections for Alaskans. No crooks, at corporate. No diverting the customer's asset. No, uh, using the customer's assets to settle a bankruptcy debt of the company. And then some other very rudimentary protections: receipts disclosures, uh, and having cash or crypto to cover what Alaskans have entrusted to the company to transmit.

It is Mr. Chairman, a modernization of our regulations. It is not a significant expansion of our regulations. We don't get into what risks an Alaskan may take or what assets they may hold. We make sure that when it's held for them, the company is doing that right. Great.

Okay. Thank you very much. So with that, the first amendment is by myself. So I'm going to move amendment number 1. Anyone would like to object?

Just for a brief explanation. Great. Thank you very much, Representative Stapp. Mr. Anderson, if you could come up and explain Amendment Number 1.

And while I've got a moment, I just want to also recognize that we have in the audience with us Representative Garrett Nelson. Thank you for joining us today. Oh, Mr. Anderson. Thank you. For the record, Brody Anderson, staff to Representative Foster.

Before the committee today is Amendment Number 1. This is the effective date changes. When this bill was first drafted last year, the effective dates were designed for the passage of a bill in the standing year. The fact that this bill has come over to the second session, the fiscal note— or excuse me, the effective dates have been switched over to remain consistent with the intent of the bill, but now is designed to go into effect after the passage of the bill. If this bill would be to pass by the end of this session.

Senator Keel, any comments on this amendment? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a welcome amendment. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Any further comments or questions on Amendment Number 1? I withdraw my objection. The objection is withdrawn. I don't see any further objections.

So with that, Amendment Number 1 to the bill, SB 86, has been adopted. That takes us to Amendment Number 2, and that's by Representative Stapp. Thank you, Chair Foster. I move Amendment 2. I'll object for purpose of discussion.

Representative Stapp. Okay, so this is going to be first in a series of kind of amendments, kind of little challenging bill, but I would consider this to be a bit of a cleanup amendment, Mr. Co-Chair. So the bill requires licensed money transmitters to maintain sufficient assets to back the currency in your control and list permissible investments. What the amendment does, it just clarifies virtual currency as the only permissible investments for assets backing virtual currency. And it also addresses one concern that was outlined in a letter in the bill packet from AgPerg back in January 2026.

Okay, Senator Keele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a good amendment and a welcome cleanup. The underlying notion of the bill is that a licensee needs to have cash or safe investments to cover cash. And needs to have the crypto to cover crypto.

This makes sure that crypto doesn't cover cash. In theory, I suppose a company could cover crypto assets with cash if they wanted to, but that's very safe. So this works very well and is an excellent clarification, Mr. Chairman. Okay. I'm going to remove my objection.

Is there any further objection on Amendment Number 2? Seeing none, Amendment Number 2 has been adopted. Representative Stepp, you have Amendment Number 3. I move Amendment 3. Okay, and I'll object for purposes of discussion.

Representative Stepp. Okay, Amendment 3, another— I would consider cleanup amendment. It's relatively simple. Basically closes a potential regulatory gap between federal and state law that potentially governs virtual currency activity that could be— allow some entities to escape from regulation by convincing the state that they're governed under the federal code as the feds when they're actually under the state code. So the amendment just goes into page 11, lines 26 through 31, and deletes some of those provisions and also addresses another concern outlined in the bill packet, which I believe was also raised by AGPRG, but I'd have to go back and check my, my letter.

The sponsor is nodding yes. So I think it was addressed by AGPRG. Senator Keele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Representative bringing this amendment forward.

It does just what he says. The bill is is built around a one-regulator model, so we're not double-regulating anyone. The way this functions, it keeps a licensee from potentially saying, "You can't regulate me, they do," and telling the other side, "You can't regulate me, they do." This works to make sure nobody slips through. So an excellent change, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Okay. Representative Galvin. Thank you. I just have one quick question. My understanding is that the virtual currency licensees can include virtual currency in their calculation of their tangible net worth.

Does that have any implications for what we heard in Amendment 2, or is it— does it align with that Amendment 2 where we heard from Representative Stapp that they must let's see, what was I reading? It was that you had to have enough of that particular currency in order to— you have to have sufficient quantity of the virtual currency to satisfy the aggregate entitlements. And again, this is all very fuzzy to me. I just wanted to make sure that it's not incongruent, if you will. Senator Kiel.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Neither Amendment 2 nor Amendment 3 changes the way that tangible net worth would be calculated. And so I think they both maintain that rudimentary security element so that a licensee must have that minimum net worth. It's a relatively low net worth, so it's not to be a barrier to entry for new, new companies, new businesses in Alaska. But this amendment, like the one before it, does not change how tangible net worth is calculated. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. I don't see any further questions. I'm going to remove my objection to Amendment Number 3 unless you had any comments, Representative Stab. Okay.

I remove my objection. Any further objections on Amendment Number 3? Hearing none, Amendment Number 3 has been adopted. That takes us to Amendment Number 4. Representative Staff.

Thank you, Chair Foster. I move Amendment 4. Okay. And I'll object. Representative Staff.

Okay. This one is a little bit more than a cleanup amendment. Basically, this amendment removes the blanket exemption for payroll processing companies and instead gives the department authority to exempt small payroll processing companies by regulation. And when you kind of think about the notions of cryptocurrency, how to utilize that, initially a blanket exemption for payroll processors kind of highlighted the ability that you might have some sort of loophole. So, in discussing with the sponsor, and if you read the letter in the packet from the National Payroll Reporting Symposium, they probably should be included because of the nature of payroll and how sensitive it is.

And really, fraud in the payroll industry is real. I mean, there has been plenty of examples, I think, in our thing. And I just kind of view this as a kind of a consumer protection amendment, but certainly defer to the sponsor if he has any questions. Okay. Senator Kuehl.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree both with the characterization of the amendment and what the amendment does. So this will prevent your mom and pop, so to speak, a small bookkeeper or perhaps a local small Alaskan CPA firm that does payroll processing as part of its work from needing to get licensed as though it were a money services business. However, there are some very large payroll processors, nationally known names, companies that, you know, release national economic data, and the volume of money that they transmit or value that they transmit, I think, justifies licensing them under the bill. And to be clear, it's my understanding that those companies, some of those companies would like to be licensed as money transmitters in Alaska.

So this would allow for that. They would not have a blanket exemption, but the division could exempt your small mom-and-pops, your small Alaska CPA firm. Okay. Representative Galvin? No.

Okay. Representative Josephson? Yes. Through the chair, Senator Keel, this sounds like you're supportive of this amendment. Senator Keel?

Mr. Chairman, Representative Josephson is correct. This is a good amendment. It was worked out in compromise with with the large payroll processors, the division, my office. I thank the representative for his work. Quick comment, Representative Josephson.

Only that I wish my whole life would work the way these first 4 amendments do. You and me both, Mr. Co-Chairman. Representative Ballard. Thank you. And just to add on to that, I, I just looked up my colleague and I had a whole bunch of nos— no offense— of why I wouldn't be able to do this.

And yeah, this— these amendments just kind of clarify. I appreciate you working with the House here on that and him will bringing it forward. Thank you, Senator Giel. Thank you, co-chair. Okay, uh, any further discussion?

Representative Stepp, do you need wrap-up? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and remove my objection. Seeing no further objections, Amendment Number 4 has been adopted. And so we have 2 other amendments, it's 5 and 6. Representative Stepp?

Uh, Ms. Co-chair, I move Amendment 5. Okay, I'll object. Representative Stepp? Okay, so again, complicated bill, Mr. Co-Chair. This Amendment Number 5 basically starts with deleting this section on page 38, line 23 through 25.

Basically, the amendment separates civil penalties into two parts to insulate the much-needed increase in civil penalties from the two-thirds vote required to pass. The indirect court rule amendment allowed for the collection of investigation fees. I've run across this indirect court amendment a few times. I find it pesky, but framers wrote it that way for a reason, I suppose. So this basically allows us not to kind of have to deal with that.

And I could be happy to go in more detail. Senator Keehl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The members of the committee may recall in hearing a different version of this bill last year, this issue came up. And in working with the maker of the amendment, I think this cleans it up.

With this change, the provisions of the bill and how it works stay the same. The indirect court rule amendment is limited only to that which would require a change in the court's rules. The other piece didn't actually need to be tied to a two-thirds vote. And so I consider this a tidy-up amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the offer of the amendment. I support it.

Okay. Representative Galvin. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster, through the chair and to the maker of the amendment. I'm just looking at the not to exceed $10,000 that were— I guess how much could extra civil penalties fees potentially add up to on top of the $10,000 cap? Representative Stapp.

I think Co-Chair Foster, through the chair to Representative Galvin, I think The previous version was $1,000 in the penalty, and we could increase that to $10,000. I don't know if the penalties stack or not. That's what I wondered. Okay. Yeah.

And that, that does not require, as the sponsor said, the, the nature of the court rule to do that. So that's kind of why they looked at that through the chair. Okay, thanks. Senator Keele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In response to Representative Galvin's question, the $10,000 now matches what is in law for bad actions by mortgage licensees. So this is parity. It is separate from the department's ability to recover its costs and expenses for investigating and prosecuting. So they would in fact be separate amounts. Okay, any further discussion on Amendment Number 5?

Seeing none, wrap up. Representative Stout? No wrap. Okay, I'm going to remove my objection. Any further objection?

Seeing none, Amendment Number 5 has been adopted. That takes us to the last amendment, which is Amendment Number 6. Representative Stout? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move Amendment Number 6.

Object. Okay, I think this is a— this is super efficient Finance Committee amendment time. So Amendment 6, basically the amendment ensures that virtual currency is covered for unclaimed property, or excuse me, I'm covered by unclaimed property laws, which prevents companies from being having to hold assets in perpetuity and also helps connect individuals who with their own long-lost funds. So encourage everyone to look themselves up on the Unclaimed Property database. I have done that myself.

The two days before I went to Iraq, I got a speeding ticket and I overpaid the Alaska State Troopers. And if you go on Unclaimed Property, you will still find that I have not collected that unclaimed property, just so I could tell the story at the House Finance Committee, Mr. Co-chair.

Okay, do we have any discussion on Amendment Number 6?

Seeing no discussion, Senator Keel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This issue was brought to our attention by some folks who— some businesses that would be licensees or will be licensees. And they pointed out some ways in which Alaska's current unclaimed property laws don't fit well with virtual currencies. And so the amendment is intended to clarify that and to make those laws work well so that if an Alaskan is separated for some significant period of time from their account, from their assets, and the licensee cannot find the Alaskan, then the asset can go to unclaimed property.

So it's a good amendment, Mr. Chairman. And it was worked out in conjunction with my office. Thank you. Thank you. Any wrap-up, Representative Snap?

No wrap-up, just make sure you check the unclaimed property website. Okay, with that, I'm going to remove my objection. I don't see no further objections. So with that, Amendment Number 6 has been adopted. That takes us through the entirety of the amendment process, and if it is the will of the committee, I would entertain a motion to to remove the bill from committee.

Representative Sharagi. Yes, Co-Chair Foster, I move Senate Bill 86, work order 34-LS0305/o, out of committee as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Okay, hearing no objection, SB 86, which is version 34-LS0305/o, moves out of committee as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. And so, Senator Keele, any parting words? Mr. Chairman, my thanks to you and to the committee for putting now 3 meetings of effort into this bill and for the cleanup.

Great work was done today, and I appreciate it. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. So, Representative Ballard.

Thank you. And I apologize. I should have given you the last word, but it's really nice Senator, to see someone from the other body come and actually have buy-in with us members here in Finance. Not that they don't, it was just a really good— and you worked with us and it just allows us to say yes. So thank you for bringing that forward.

And Representative— Representative—. Chairman, there's a first time for everything. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Just, uh, thank you, Senator Keele, for bringing this forward.

And if you would leave your review of the House Finance Committee Yes, we appreciate that. Thank you. I'll like and subscribe. Representative Hannon. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

Just so you guys know, I have to work with him, so he is my senator. So thank you for all of that. They all love you. Thank you very much, Senator. They never say this to any of the other senators.

Now I'm never going to hear the end of it. Because we have weekly delegation meetings and I am sure this is going to come up. Senator Keel, you're a good guy. Thank you for being here. Okay.

So with that, we are going to jump right into the next bill and we're shooting to be out of here by about 5. So that gives us about 20 minutes. But I think the actual voting part is is over. And so folks need to leave a little early, and some of us are able to stay a little later. I'm willing to do that.

So with that, our next bill is House Bill 104, and I'd like to invite up Representative Mears as well as her staff, Talia Eames, if you'd like to come up, put yourselves on the record and reintroduce this bill. Looks like we last heard it on May 17th and May 18th. We had public testimony on May 17th. And so we may need to get more of an in-depth recap of the bill. And so with that, if you could put yourself on the record.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster and members of the House Finance Committee. I am Representative Donna Mears, representing the fine folks in South Muldoon, House District 21. I'm grateful for the timing and your appreciation of Senator Keele as House Bill 104 is a companion to a bill he's carrying over on the Senate side, and it is in their Finance Committee at the moment. So, House Bill 104 is address confidentiality. There's a small but important group of people in the state that have reasons to keep their addresses out of the public record.

This includes peace officers and correctional officers who may be targets of retribution due to their roles in the justice system. It also includes victims of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, and other people who have got protective orders and safety plans. The purpose of a program like this is to allow someone who faces these serious threats to be able to participate fully in everyday daily life without further endangering themselves or their family. House Bill 104 creates an address protection program for survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, peace officers and correctional officers, and their families. There are many times an address must be provided in order to participate in society, and these include including voting, working, sending children to school, and more.

HB 104 establishes a program whereby these at-risk individuals can receive mail at a centralized, anonymized PO Box. Mail received by the state on behalf of enrollees will then be forwarded to the participant's home address, which will remain confidential under penalty of law. So I wanted to, um, uh, really be thankful that we've got, uh, some, uh, folks that can speak about these programs in other states. We've got Keeley Oslund on the line. And what I think where we need to go with our discussion today is we have a relatively significant fiscal note on this bill.

And I would like if it is the committee's will to have a discussion about getting a little deeper into how many people would actually potentially be able utilize this program. Having your mail that is associated with a legal address for these purposes is not convenient. This program is designed for folks that are doing other extraordinary measures to keep themselves protected from stalkers and people that are coming after them. So we really are looking at a small number of people. And as we go through our work here, yes, it's— as we try and figure out how many people— well, how many people could be involved.

So looking at all, you know, peace officers and corrections officers and the number of people with protective orders or could be in there is a universe to look at. But the reality is that a very small number of folks are going to be able to utilize the this program. So if it's the will of the committee, if Ms. Keely Olson is available to give us a little background and share her experience with programs from other states and the actual utilization of similar programs. Okay. We'll go to Ms. Keely Olson if you're online.

It looks like you're calling in from Anchorage. If you can just state your name and your affiliation.

Good afternoon. Thank you to the chair and the committee. For the record, my name is Keely Olson, and I am the executive director for STAR in Anchorage. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of HB 104.

I consider it a critical piece of legislation and would welcome an address confidentiality program in Alaska. Prior to working at STAR, I worked as a victim advocate in a couple of other states, Washington State and the state of Montana, both of which had address confidentiality programs. They provided essential tools for advocates to assist someone that was being faced with stalking or a case of domestic violence or sexual assault with high lethality risk to help them be safer. Combined with comprehensive safety planning and an emergency relocation plan, address confidentiality programs can help save lives and help survivors cope with the constant fear of their location being compromised. Address confidentiality programs are available in— more than 40 states.

Alaska is one of a handful of states that does not offer this kind of protection, while at the same time we have the highest incidence of men committing homicide against women in the state of Alaska. So, any kind of protection that we can offer to people who are doing their darndest to get safe and following a ton of procedures to do so, I think it behooves us and actually would save state dollars moving forward in law enforcement response alone. The programs that I have experience with are accessible, easy to use, and inexpensive. Last year, out of curiosity, I contacted Montana's program administrator to ask about their program that is run out of their Secretary of State's office. It began in 2006, and over the last 17 years, now 18 years, but I was talking with them a year ago in April of 2025, they informed me that the program had cost Montana around $22,000 a year to operate.

They had 68 participants enrolled. Many of those were not actively using the program.

The main costs of the program were to pay a small portion of an administrator's salary and her assistant's salary for dealing with very part-time types of response for taking someone's, you know, first-class mail and forwarding it on to a protected address. I applaud making the program accessible to law enforcement. I have worked with those in law enforcement who have placed their homes in a spouse or family member's name to protect their addresses, all at incredible risk to themselves. And, you know, in case of a falling out, as it were. So I can appreciate the need for their inclusion in this bill and would support it.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and would be available for any questions. Okay, thank you very much. Does the committee have any questions? And I saw Representative Allard earlier. Did you have a sponsor?

Okay, uh, so I had Representative Allard, then Josephson, or I guess to this first let's go to the sponsor and then we'll go to the committee. Um, actually let's back up. I think this question is— we're going to go to Representative Allard. Sorry. Are you sure?

Yes. Okay, I got you, co-chair. Okay, so I have a couple questions. We, we did say police officers and we said law enforcement, um, or not law enforcement, maybe we did. And then, so my question would be through the chair to Representative Mears: when you say, um, peace officers, what does that include besides correctional officers and possibly just police officers?

Representative Mears? Um, Representative Allard. I was also speaking, you know, off the riff. I'm sure there's a definition in here, but last year, I don't know if you recall, we did have—. I have bad memory, that's why I'm trying to get familiar with it.

That's fine, I just reviewed myself through the chair to Representative Allard from Chief Bosch here in Juneau, so law enforcement. Law enforcement officers. Say that again. Law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers.

Is that federal?

Through the chair to Representative Allard, in the package we have peace officer means an officer of the state troopers, a member of police force of a municipality, a village public safety officer, a regional public safety officer, a United States Marshal or Deputy Marshal, and an officer whose duty is to enforce and preserve the public public piece. Okay. And if I could just clarify, that was Representative Mears, and I think it's maybe a little difficult for the folks in the back to try to keep a record here. Um, just want to make sure we're— Representative Ballard, thank you. And through the co-chair, um, thank you for that.

So that's the definition that you came up with for the bill? Representative Mears?

Representative Mears, for the record, through the chair to Representative Allard, that is in statute, statute already, AS01.10.060. Thank you. Through the co-chair, I'm just going to cut through the chase. Does that include ICE? Representative Mears.

Representative Mears, through the chair to Representative Allard.

I am not I'm not extremely familiar with all the definitions, but that does not appear to be included in our current definition. Okay. Thank you. And may I? Representative Ballard.

Thank you. And thank you for being here, Representative Mears. What about predators? What about individuals who have been convicted of really bad crimes, whether it's on children or women or other men, and they're on a registry? A teacher?

How—. And say like they've been— I think we talked about it a little bit last year and that somebody has threatened them or they've been stalked. How are we going to still say— I mean, I don't think they deserve it, but protect them so that their address may be not disclosed, but I would like to know where they're at in case my granddaughter one day drives or rides her little bike by their house. Representative Mears. Representative Mears, suthid.

Chair to Representative Allard. My recollection from Chief Boss's testimony last year was no, it does not include those folks. This is looking for people that meet that definition of a peace officer, corrections officer, or folks with protective orders or safety plans for domestic violence. So they wouldn't fall under for that. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, co-chair. Thank you. That was Representative Ellard. Uh, just so folks know, I do have an extensive queue here. I've got Representative Josephson, Galvin, Bynum, Hannon.

Okay, uh, Representative Josephson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the bill, Representative Mears. Representative Mears, was there any, um, beneath this committee or an earlier committee Was there any request that judicial officers be added?

Representative Mears. Through the chair to Representative Josephson, it has been discussed both in State Affairs and briefly here as well last year in Finance, I believe. And the answer was no, there had not been a request from those folks. Okay. Representative Josephson.

Are you— and we have Mr. Anderson who briefs us on our options But are you finding the principal fiscal note, number 2333, with all the dollars, are you finding that sort of not agreeable to you? That is, are you thinking it's embellished or the cost is exaggerated or something like that? Representative Mears.

Through the chair to Representative Josephson, I think when we look at numbers, we need to look at quantity and what's included in them. I think that the number of folks that are included in the fiscal note is larger than one would expect. The amount of folks, particularly for corrections office and corrections officers and peace officers, really would be a very limited number, and I believe the fiscal Fiscal note includes quite a large number of them. And then also a line of question Representative Hannan had last year was about the amount of support someone falling in that category might need to utilize the program. And when you look at those two things in consideration of the amount per person being spent in other states for this program, the per person in other states is much smaller than is represented.

So the quantity and the, and the, and the per unit cost in this fiscal note are significantly more than we're seeing in other places. The same also has a comment on that. Ms. Ames, through the chair, for the record, Talia Ames. We also did some math last year with the state of Washington's program. Washington has a significantly larger population, and in 2021, which is the most recent record we had, They had about 5,000 people in their address confidentiality program for a total of $766,000.

Divided by the number of participants, that's about $153 per enrollee for the state of Washington. If we use a similar calculation with Alaska, with the fiscal note of $423,650 and 650 participants it would be $650 per enrollee, which is significantly higher than the existing program in Washington of $153. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Next question I've got, Representative Galvin, did you have a—. No, that was asked just now. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Representative Bynum and Hannan. Representative Bynum. Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair Foster, through the Chair. Representative Mears, thank you for bringing this forward. I, you know, on its surface when I look at this bill, I was trying to think about it and I recalled back to last year and it came back to me, you know, some of my, I guess, objections to the bill.

Not the concept, but the bill itself. That was the expansive scope of who is covered and how we are developing a system within the state government to actually implement this. I think last year— and correct me if I'm wrong— when we asked or when I asked the question of whether or not there are services already providing these services, I believe the answer was yes. Is that accurate? When I say other services, people providing services, I don't mean the state government.

I mean third-party vendors in the private market that would provide these types of services. Representative Mears. For the record, Representative Mears through the co-chair to Representative Bynum. There are some services that you can anonymize your address, but there are other things that you are required to provide a legal address for. So you can— so one of the provisions of the bill is that it's allowed to use this PO box for registering a child for school, for example, which you wouldn't otherwise be able to do.

So you can tick a box, I know in the Municipality of Anchorage, of no, I don't want my address published here. So there are some of those protections, but this is above and beyond so that this anonymized address is a legal address for the folks in the program. So there are other ways, but this is getting— these are the last final steps to help protect people's safety. Representative Bynum. Thank you.

Through the Chair, Representative Mears, thank you for that. And so [Speaker:COMMISSIONER_ARKOOSH] Then the thought then for me goes to the idea of that we— what I would like— this is just my personal perspective on this— is what I'd like to be able to see happen is that we would put into law that people that are meeting certain categories can use these other services. And then instead of us developing a full program to provide the actual service, if we feel that it's needed, that we provide grants or funding through organizations that are already helping with this. I can think of quite a few back home. WISH is one of those— Women in Safe Homes— that specifically helps address victims of violence and helping them navigate these things.

So I really applaud the, the concept behind the bill. I just don't know that I'm in favor of actually creating a whole department or a governmental component to actually implement such a program. But I would support an element within law that would allow those addresses provided through services to be acceptable forms of address for the purposes of governmental activity. So those are my thoughts. We are going to go to the next two questions, then we will close it out for the day.

And I have got Representative Galvin and Hannon. Representative Galvin. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the Chair, I wondered if I could ask the testifier from STAR a quick question. If she's available.

Ms. Keeley, or Ms. Olson, I should say, thank you for being here. I'm curious to know, since you've been participatory of this sort of a program in Washington and in Montana, are the folks who are needing or wanting this level, this extra layer of protection, do they have the resources to pay for their own post office box? How was that done or how was that experienced in the states that you've worked in? Ms. Olson was online a second ago, but I think she might be off For now, if I could just verify, okay, off, not online, okay. Perhaps the sponsor could help us with knowing— it seems like this has been done before and these likely are the sorts of folks who don't have a lot of extra resources, but I just don't know and I wanted to hear if that's something you would like to share with us.

Ms. Ames. Through the co-chair to Representative Galvin. I think often when people are in this level of needing protection, they're fleeing violence. They've relocated several times. They often don't have the resources.

They are very much in survival mode. Securing a post office box or a mail forwarding service might be the last thing on their minds. A lot of times when people are fleeing violence, they also don't have a lot of money. You know, a lot of things happen with domestic violence, and one of those things is economic control. So I, I would go out and say that a lot of them, most of them, likely do not have the resources to take this upon themselves or the, the focus on that, those things.

Okay, thank you. And I have one more follow-up to the sponsor too, or staff. When we hear that you can check off a box in terms of not having your address published through a municipal form, is that the same thing as getting a, a post office box that is specific to any mail that you need to be sent to you.

Representative Mears. For the record, Donna Mears. Through the chair to Representative Galvin, I think there's a number of different layers and opportunities for privacy and what is readily available on public record. So my example of municipal property tax records is you can go and you can look up a property and see who the property owner is and get an address. So that can be anonymized through that process there.

Being able to have a post office box instead of using your personal address for a number of things is another layer of, you know, being able to provide privacy to yourself. But where this bill goes is there's another level of things that folks need a real physical address for, that might be in an unsecured system, that this allows to happen. So, yes, there's a number of things that you can do, but this takes those final steps to protect people that are being stalked. Okay, thank you. And I was going to ask also about the $22,000.

Of Ms. Olson when it's 8.12 million people who live in Washington, whereas here we only have 700,000. So I just can't imagine that this fiscal note is anywhere near what we could do. I just can't— I can't piece that together. So to me, And that's something I would enjoy hearing from someone who knows more about how other states have done it so economically, because clearly there's a disconnect here. And I don't want one woman or man who is feeling unprotected to not have this opportunity because we've somehow been unaccustomed to this.

And so we inflated this fiscal note perhaps in ways that was being careful. I just really think that we need to be mindful that, you know, it is our job to help do everything we can to especially at this level of security that is needed, bring this on. So I am not sure how to address that, Co-Chair, but I did hear in the past that your staff gave us some suggestions around fiscal notes. I just wouldn't know how to approach it. I'm open to that though because this feels very important.

Thank you. Maybe Representative Mears, I mean, we certainly want to try to use good data when we change and we try not to change fiscal notes whenever possible. But in extraordinary circumstances when the committee feels that it's necessary, I think it's justified as long as we've got good data for that. So maybe that's something we I can look into some more with my staff and Representative Mears. I do have two additional questions and then we are going to close out.

So Representative Hannan, then Josephson. Representative Hannan. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Actually, mine were comments, and I wish a couple of the members who asked these questions were still here because I took fairly extensive notes on my draft last May— or not my draft, the bill when we first heard it— including the carve-out on page Page 3, Representative Allard asked about— she didn't use the words, but she was talking about people who might be subject to the sex offender registry. The bill on page 3, lines 10 and 11, subsection D, calls out a carve-out that AS 1263.010, which is the sex offender registry.

So if you are subject to the sex offender registry, you are not eligible for this confidentiality carve out.

I think when Representative Bynum was talking about other programs that may give you some processes to be anonymous, I think the reason this bill is important is this places it in statute because most of those are programs and services of private companies that say, you know, we can do mail forwarding, etc. Many of them designed around corporations and LLCs. This places in statute similar to, in my mind, HIPAA violation. If you are a part of this, there is a legal ramification for violating the confidentiality that it places in statute. And then third, my recollection of our fiscal note being large is the first category of people who've been subject to stalking or domestic violence spells out very specific parameters of you need to have an ongoing stalking order, it needs to be for multiple years, you could be the child of that, but then when we go to peace officer and corrections officer, there are no other qualifiers, and I— my recollection is that the fiscal notes were predicated on a substantial portion of those people who just by definition are peace officers are going to take advantage of this.

But I'm going to assert, if we go back to how this works and the kinds of inconveniences it throws in your way, that most peace officers, especially in a town where they already— they know that because they're the baseball coach that their neighbors know they're a cop, they're not going to try and hide their identity because their cop car comes home and parks in their driveway every night. So even though mathematically it's eligible to be, the fact is that most peace officers and correction officers in our communities aren't going to, unless they've been under threat, but then they're going to have taken other means to try and already exercise where there is some options to not use your real and ongoing legal address. So I don't want to say that the department's overblowing it, but they don't know how many people, because the category of peace officers and correction officers say anyone who is a member of that category could. So they've got to anticipate that perhaps a lot of them will. But I think in small towns, um, I think there'd be few, because people are already known to you who police officer who works at corrections.

Now, that's going to be a little different in Anchorage, maybe Fairbanks, but in Seward, mm, where our largest maximum security prison is, everybody knows who works at the prison because those are good jobs. Right. Um, so those are my thoughts, and I do support the bill. And my recollection is I do think the judicial officers may have gotten more stalking threats, but but they haven't necessarily asked to be included.

I think we're getting more questions. I might just—. Just a comment—. Gavel us out here and then bring up questions. I guess we'll finish off then.

Representative Josephson and then Bynum. Well, thank you. Between 2003 and 2012, I did strictly family law and frequent protective order hearings defending them defending my clients who were respondents or petitioners. And typically when you're filling out the form, it says, where do you want the respondent to not go? And, you know, you have to— the judge has to say, you can't go to 123 Maple Street, because otherwise the guy doesn't know he can't go there.

If it's really well anonymized and he's not stalking or pursuing the person, then I guess you don't need that. So typically the protective order would say don't go to their workplace at 123, you know, Turnkey Street, and don't go to their home at 123 Maple Street, and don't call them at 907, you know, 111-2222. And that person would be subject to a Type A misdemeanor. So I don't know, it's just, it's just a wrinkle to think about, and I don't know if you have a comment.

I hate to get too far into this conversation without— when we're missing about half of our committee. And so, but Representative Mears, and then hopefully our last comment will be Representative Bynum, and then we can try to include the rest of our committee at our next meeting. So Representative Mears. Thank you, Representative Mears. Through the chair to Representative Josephson, I think there's a lot of complexities that people are dealing with when they're in these situations, and the folks that are helping support them advocate are making sure that their privacy is being held however it needs to be.

I'm not deep into the specifics of all those other circumstances and how to get there. But circumstances vary, and we know that this is something that, if enacted in statute, will help protect that last bit for folks that are on the run and moving Ms. Ames has a comment on this as well. Ms. Ames. Through the chair, Talia Ames for the record. To Representative Josephson, on page 3, line 3B, the victim meets other standards set by the department.

That was asked to be put in by the network for the purpose of those that might not be able to get a protective order for some of the reasons you say. So they don't have to disclose locations because sometimes in a safety plan, a protective order is not always the best thing for a victim of domestic violence or stalking. So that would cover people that do not have those protective orders. Thank you. Okay.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I just wanted to clarify for the record that I am in favor of putting into law non-disclosure disclosure components or tools that the state would have available to people that are impacted by these particular issues. But what I was trying to say is that I'm not in favor of— in favor of is I'm not in favor of creating a state agency or the state becoming a mail forwarding provider. And I think that you can have both, or that you can get both results without the the state providing basically mail forwarding services.

But I am fully in favor of putting in law the nondisclosure tools necessary to protect victims of violence. And I know that that's complex because there's lots of different places where we might need to do that— PFD applications, DMV, court records, other garnishments and other things that might be required. So, so I know that's complex. I do support putting nondisclosure in law. It's just the mail forwarding component that I just have some issues with.

So I just want to clarify that on the record. Okay, thank you. Um, like I say, I, I kind of wish— I think for the reason Representative, uh, Hannon mentioned earlier, just trying to have some more of our, uh, fellow finance members here. I think a number of good points have just been made. And so hopefully maybe they can go back and watch maybe this last 15 minutes of the committee meeting.

So with that, I'm going to go ahead and make an announcement for our next meeting. Thank you very much, Representative Mears and Ms. Ames, for being here. And we did send out an email earlier and setting two amendment deadlines. And just to reiterate those here, that was Senate Bill 130, that's the Fisheries Production Development Tax Credit. We're going to set that for Wednesday, May 6th at 5 PM.

And House Bill 195, that is the pharmacist bill, the pharmacist prescriptive authority for— that'll be set for Thursday, May 7th at noon. And so with that, our next meeting is scheduled for tomorrow morning at 9 AM. And at that meeting, we'll hear introductions on Senate Bill 29. That's the Big Game Commercial Services Board bill, as well as House Bill 388. That's the bulk fuel loan cap bill.

And so if there's nothing else to come before the committee, Representative Bynum. Uh, co-chair Foscher, I just want to say I think my other colleagues have left to a meeting that I'm currently missing. So I just wanted to put it on the record. I believe that that's what happened is they, they had another meeting scheduled at 5 and they left for that. And unfortunately I'm being here.

So you get to bring back the, uh, the news, the good word. There you go. Yes, you're the representative of the representatives. Thank you, sir. So with that, uh, we'll be— House Finance will be adjourned at 5:15 PM.

Thank you.