A bill to create a statewide address‑confidentiality program for certain victims and public safety employees drew support from victim advocates and law enforcement at a House Finance Committee hearing May 17, but committee members flagged fiscal and scope questions and postponed further action.

HB104 would authorize the Department of Administration to accept mail for enrolled participants at a centralized state P.O. box and forward it to each participant’s confidential address. The bill defines eligible participants to include people protected by domestic‑violence or stalking protective orders, victims of sexual assault and human trafficking, household members of eligible people, and peace officers and correctional officers. The measure bars registered offenders from enrolling, sets the eligibility period at five years with renewals allowed, prohibits the department from charging enrollment fees, allows disclosure only under a search warrant and makes unlawful revelation of a protected address a class B misdemeanor. The bill’s stated effective date is Jan. 1, 2026.

Supporters told the committee the program is intended for a small subset of people in extreme risk situations. “There’s a small but important group of people in the state that have reasons to keep their addresses out of the public record,” Representative Donna Mears, the bill sponsor, said. “The purpose of a program like this is to allow someone who faces these serious threats to be able to participate fully in everyday life without further endangering themselves or their families.”

Advocates and law enforcement described how the program can be used as one tool within broader safety planning. Keeley Olsen, executive director of STAR (Stop The Abuse and Rape) in Anchorage, said she has worked in states with address‑confidentiality programs and that the programs helped survivors who faced persistent stalking or high lethality risk. “The address confidentiality program helped save lives and helps survivors cope with the constant fear of their address being compromised,” Olsen said. Laurie Morton, deputy director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, told the committee the program will be used “occasionally when the circumstances are extreme” but can be critical in cases where a replacement P.O. box or other measures do not provide safety in small communities.

Juneau Police Chief Derek Boss, testifying in favor, described threats he has seen directed at officers and described threats to officers’ families. “Home should be a place of peace and relaxation,” Boss said. He told lawmakers the program “is pivotal for supporting the safety of our survivors and victims of abuse … as well as essential for enhancing the safety of our law enforcement and correctional officers.”

Committee members pressed sponsors and the administration on practical limits and fiscal implications. The Department of Administration’s fiscal note for fiscal year 2026 estimated a General Fund appropriation request of $423,500 for two full‑time positions and start‑up costs, with continuing costs in following years. Department staff told the committee that costs rise with additional participants because of postage, supplies and staff time; Brad Ewing, division director in Shared Services, said the fiscal estimate increased after the bill expanded eligibility to include peace officers and correctional officers. “Once we realize that comparing to other states, we would likely see more participants due to the eligibility of peace officers and correctional officers,” he said.

Members asked whether existing options—private P.O. boxes or mail‑forwarding services—would be sufficient. Sponsors and witnesses said those private options do not always address public records or other statutory requirements (for example, for voting or agency records), can carry fees that survivors lack resources to pay, and may not protect location in small villages where the community name alone can identify a household. Talia Eames, staff to Representative Mears, said the bill also requires state and municipal agencies to accept the program’s substitute mailing address for official purposes.

Several lawmakers raised concerns about widening eligibility beyond survivors protected by orders. Representative Larry Bynum said he favored keeping a narrow scope focused on domestic‑violence and sexual‑assault survivors given the fiscal estimate. Representative Mears said the bill’s initial impetus was protective‑order holders but that some states have broadened eligibility to include law enforcement and corrections workers; she said a broader expansion could be considered as a later “phase two.”

The committee recessed debate at 10:32 a.m. and resumed at 4:08 p.m. to take questions and study the fiscal note. Witnesses described experiences from other states: the Montana program administrator told the committee that Montana’s program had 68 participants since 2006 and only about 20 received regular mail forwarding, and that the program cost roughly $50,000 to set up and about $375,000 total over 17 years. Keeley Olsen said that in her 30 years of domestic‑violence work she had used address‑confidentiality services for only a handful of clients—those in extreme, persistent danger—emphasizing that the program is not a convenience substitute for a private P.O. box.

The committee kept public testimony open while members continued other business and said they would return to HB104 in a later floor or committee session. Staff invited additional written testimony and told the public how to submit it. No final committee action or vote was taken on HB104 on May 17.