Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
05/07/2025 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB62 | |
| HB123 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 7, 2025
9:15 a.m.
9:15:01 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage, Co-Chair
Representative Jamie Allard
Representative Jeremy Bynum
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Nellie Unangiq Jimmie
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
James Cockrell, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety;
David Kanaris, Chief, Forensic Laboratory, Department of
Public Safety; Brodie Anderson, Staff, Representative Neal
Foster; Susie Frenzel, Director, Victim Services and
Forensic Science Division, Department of Public Safety;
Representative Kevin McCabe, Sponsor.
SUMMARY
HB 62 SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS/TRACKING
HB 62 was REPORTED out of committee with ten "do
pass" recommendations and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN2 (DPS).
HB 123 TAXATION: VEHICLE RENTALS, SUBPOENAS
HB 123 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 57(FIN)
APPROP: CAPITAL/FUNDS/REAPPROP
CSSB 57(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 62
"An Act relating to sexual assault examination kits;
establishing the sexual assault examination kit
tracking system; and providing for an effective date."
9:16:38 AM
JAMES COCKRELL, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
relayed that seven to eight years earlier, Alaska had faced
serious challenges in responding to sexual assaults. With
the support of the legislature, the state had made
significant progress in how law enforcement, nurse
practitioners, and the state's crime lab responded to
sexual assaults and processed sexual assault kits. He
shared that the backlog of sexual assault kits had been
cleaned up and all current kits remained preserved at the
state crime lab indefinitely. He explained that the intent
of HB 62 was to ensure that the progress could not be
undone by future administrations or commissioners. He
remarked that Alaska had set a national standard and was
ranked highly among other states. He noted that Alaska
would be ahead of many other states if the bill were to
pass.
Commissioner Cockrell explained that victims of sexual
assault typically lacked control in the aftermath of a
sexual assault. The victims had little control during
interviews with law enforcement or when undergoing
examinations by health care providers. The bill would allow
victims confidential access to track their sexual assault
kits from collection to final processing, restoring a
measure of control. He stated that the goal of the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) was to ensure that
victims became survivors.
Commissioner Cockrell added that the bill been a priority
for both the department and the administration. He noted
that forensic scientists had begun to work in the crime lab
to speed up processing timelines. He described the bill as
critical to continuing the progress made over the past
decade.
9:21:28 AM
Representative Hannan thanked the commissioner for his
passionate testimony. She asked for more information about
the role of Child Advocacy Centers (CACs) in supporting the
prosecution of sexual abuse and neglect cases involving
children. She asked if CACs had a role in tracking the
sexual assault kit and assisting the child through the
process.
Commissioner Cockrell responded that if a sexual assault
examination kit was collected, it would be entered into the
system. He explained that either the advocacy center or a
parent could follow the kit through the confidential
software system. He noted that each kit carried a barcode
that was scanned at each stage of the process. He stated
that the department's intent was to ensure child victims
received the necessary support to live productive lives.
Representative Hannan noted that the Juneau Police
Department had stressed the importance of CACs in the
successful prosecution of child sex crimes. She asked if
the commissioner could provide additional information.
Commissioner Cockrell responded that CACs were critical
because the centers provided essential evidence to take to
court. He stated that the centers effectively served as an
arm of law enforcement, since the cases ultimately returned
to law enforcement for investigation. He emphasized that
the multidisciplinary approach helped protect children,
which was the primary goal. He explained that the aim was
to ensure that children did not remain victims for the rest
of their lives but instead had the opportunity to heal and
move forward.
9:24:21 AM
DAVID KANARIS, CHIEF, FORENSIC LABORATORY, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, introduced the PowerPoint presentation
"House Bill (HB) 62: Sexual Assault Examination Kit
Tracking System" dated May 7, 2025 (copy on file). He moved
to slide 2 and explained that the bill sought to accomplish
three main objectives: first, it would establish timelines
for the transmittal and testing of the kits; second, it
would codify the sexual assault kit tracking system; third,
it would create provisions for survivor rights and
transparency.
Mr. Kanaris advanced to slide 3 and explained that under
current law, there were no established timelines for
medical providers to transfer sexual assault kits to law
enforcement. He stated that HB 62 would require medical
providers to notify law enforcement and turn over kits
within 14 days. Law enforcement would then have 20 days,
reduced from 30, to submit the kits to the crime lab. Once
received, the lab's processing timeline would be reduced
from 180 days to 120 days.
Representative Galvin understood that biological DNA
samples had a specific period of viability and asked
whether the bill's proposed timelines accounted for the
viability of samples.
Mr. Kanaris responded that the most critical timeline was
the period between the assault and the collection of
samples from the victim. Once samples had been collected,
the samples remained relatively stable, even at room
temperature. He stated that the bill did not address the
period before collection as it focused only on the handling
and processing after collection.
Representative Galvin asked if the bill would apply to
child victims examined at CACs. She asked if the timeline
of the kits for child victims would be the same as for
adults.
Mr. Kanaris confirmed that the timelines and provisions
applied regardless of the age of the victim.
9:27:09 AM
Mr. Kanaris continued on slide 4 and explained that the
second major element of the bill concerned survivor rights
and transparency. He stated that victims would be able to
opt into the tracking system and monitor the progress of
the kits through notifications or by logging in to the
system online. He emphasized that the approach had been
shaped by input from survivor and advocacy groups that
stressed the importance of being able to engage with the
criminal justice system on their own terms and at their own
pace, without having to reengage directly with law
enforcement.
Mr. Kanaris continued to slide 5 and explained that the
bill would codify the sexual assault kit tracking system.
The system was already operating with strong support from
the legislature and the administration, but there was no
guarantee it would remain in place under future leadership.
He asserted that codifying the system in statute would
ensure its continuation. He stressed that the system was
too important to fail. He explained that codification would
also guarantee confidentiality of survivor data. The system
did not contain personal identifying information and each
kit was tracked only by barcode. The system ensured
anonymity while allowing the kits to be monitored
throughout the process.
Mr. Kanaris advanced to slide 6 which included photos of
long-term sexual assault kit storage at the state crime
lab. He described the image as sobering, noting that there
were approximately 14,000 kits that had been processed over
time and would remain in permanent storage. He stated that
the photos illustrated the magnitude of the issue.
Co-Chair Foster asked whether the 14,000 kits represented
the backlog that had previously existed.
Mr. Kanaris responded that the number reflected total
processed kits currently stored at the lab. He explained
that between 2015 and 2018, DPS had used a federal grant to
audit unsubmitted kits in its possession. The department
had identified approximately 500 to 600 unsubmitted kits,
all of which had since been tested. In 2017 to 2018, the
legislature appropriated funding for other agencies
statewide to audit and submit their inventories, which
revealed approximately 2,500 additional untested kits. The
additional kits had also since been tested. He explained
that the crime lab currently received approximately 1,100
to 1,200 DNA requests per year and more than half of which
involved sexual assault kits. While evidence from other
cases was eventually returned to the investigating agencies
for storage, sexual assault kits remained permanently at
the crime lab because of past concerns about untested
inventories.
9:31:10 AM
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
reviewed the fiscal impact note from DPS with OMB component
527 and control code xRnIN. He explained that the note
reflected a request of $197,500 beginning in FY 26. The
total included $123,000 for one program coordinator
position. He noted that the department currently had two
coordinators funded by a federal grant, but once the grant
expired only one position would be needed for long-term
program management. The fiscal note also requested $8,500
for five annual trips, one of which would be out of state.
The services line totaled $65,000, consisting of $49,000
for InVita Healthcare Technology (IHT) software and $16,000
in core service costs for program implementation. He stated
that commodities were listed at $1,000 for training
materials and supplies.
9:33:27 AM
SUSIE FRENZEL, DIRECTOR, VICTIM SERVICES AND FORENSIC
SCIENCE DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, relayed that
she had prepared the fiscal note. She explained that the
department had conducted a thorough review of its civilian
positions to determine if any other vacancies could be
filled. She emphasized that no such positions were
available, which created the need for the fiscal note.
Representative Tomaszewski asked if IHT had been selected
through a competitive process that led to the awarding of
the contract.
Ms. Frenzel confirmed that IHT had been selected through a
competitive bid process.
Commissioner Cockrell reiterated that the tracking system
was vital in addressing sexual assaults across the state.
He hoped that the committee understood the value of the
bill and the department's desire to see it succeed. He
stressed that significant progress had been made in recent
years and he did not want to lose momentum. He recalled
that similar legislation had nearly passed in the previous
year under challenging fiscal circumstances. He stressed
that sexual assault affected everyone. The legislation
would provide survivors with control over the process
within the criminal justice system, which was often
misunderstood, particularly in rural areas. He explained
that the bill would allow advocates to help survivors
remain engaged in the justice process so that perpetrators
could be held accountable.
9:36:21 AM
AT EASE
9:37:21 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson commented that former State of Alaska
Representative Geran Tarr had collaborated closely with Mr.
Kanaris years earlier. He remarked that Representative
Tarr's work was relentless, and she had played an important
role in crafting the legislation and moving it forward.
9:38:02 AM
AT EASE
9:46:19 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster relayed that there was interest in moving
the bill forward. He noted that it had been working its way
through the process and there had already been public
testimony on it.
Representative Allard appreciated the committee coming
together on the bill. She thought it was important for the
committee to take action on the bill to help Alaska's
children and communities.
Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to REPORT HB 62 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 62 was REPORTED out of committee with ten "do pass"
recommendations and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN2 (DPS).
[Representative Stapp was absent from the motion.]
9:48:22 AM
HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act relating to vehicle rental taxes; relating to
the issuance of subpoenas related to tax records; and
providing for an effective date."
9:48:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCABE, SPONSOR, explained that HB 123
was a bill that intended to address fairness. He emphasized
that the bill cut the vehicle rental tax, which leveled the
playing field and protected Alaskans who had previously
been harmed by unclear rules in the prior tax structure. He
remarked that the bill provided peace of mind regarding the
ongoing tax collection efforts and gave a starting point
for people to move forward. He asserted that at its core,
HB 123 supported small businesses.
Representative McCabe added that the bill gave legacy
rental car companies a small tax decrease and required the
online car rental company Turo to pay a tax as required. He
stated that the bill resolved legal uncertainties that had
been discussed at a prior committee meeting. He asserted
that the bill represented a win for Alaskans. He recalled
that efforts had been underway for a couple of years to
pass the bill and he thought that it was time to move it
forward.
9:50:10 AM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
9:50:47 AM
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that he would not object to
moving the bill and acknowledged that Representative McCabe
had made strong arguments. However, he asked if
Representative McCabe could provide more detail as to why
there should be a reduction in the tax rate for Turo and
related businesses.
Representative McCabe responded that Turo was in the early
stages of becoming a significant industry. He argued that
offering a small tax decrease would help incentivize
growth, provide support, and allow time to establish how
many cars were involved and what revenue would be produced.
He explained that additional criteria could be implemented
once more data became available. He recalled that the
legislature had taken a similar approach years earlier with
the motorhome rental industry, which was now taxed at 3.5
percent. He expressed confidence that all sectors would be
brought together under a consistent tax rate in the future.
He stated that the current 2 percent difference between the
legacy rental companies, such as Enterprise, Avis, and
Hertz, and Turo was a way to bring Turo "into the fold."
Representative Galvin stated that she appreciated the focus
on fairness in the bill. She recognized that Representative
McCabe sought to protect Alaskans who had were confused
about the prior system. She thought the peer-to-peer
component was especially important. She asked how the term
"peer-to-peer" was defined and how many cars an individual
might rent out.
Representative McCabe responded that he could not imagine
it would involve more than a couple of cars. If there was a
situation in the future in which an individual operated 200
cars and maintained a brick-and-mortar business, the
individual would be classified as a legacy rental car
company, even if they were using Turo as a booking
platform. He added that he could not imagine anyone
choosing the legacy model because legacy companies already
had their own platforms and booking systems. He emphasized
that Turo had been designed as a platform for small-scale
operators, such as families with a couple of cars, or
parents who chose to rent out a child's vehicle while the
child was away at college. He reiterated that the platform
was not designed for large-scale operations, though he
recognized that some people might take advantage of the
system, as was the case with any industry.
Representative Galvin remarked that she had noticed other
states had established clearer thresholds, such as limiting
peer-to-peer operators to ten cars or fewer. She explained
that she saw the platform as a tool for families to make a
little extra money, which seemed reasonable to her. She
expressed concern that some individuals might take
advantage of the system and asked if the bill accounted for
the possibility. She asked how the reduction in the legacy
tax rate related to the peer-to-peer structure.
9:55:40 AM
Representative McCabe replied that his intent was to
initiate the process. The state currently had no data on
revenue generated by Turo, the number of cars involved, or
how many hosts participated. He stated that the purpose of
the bill was to begin collecting information. He suggested
that the legislature might reduce the legacy rate in the
future to match Turo, or align motorhome rentals as well,
which would benefit Alaskans without significantly reducing
expected revenue. He relayed that he was nervous about
carrying a bill involving a tax, but understood that it was
important to start somewhere. He noted that the bill
included subpoena powers, which would allow the state to
monitor how much revenue was being generated and determine
how many hosts were operating more than five or ten cars.
He added that the data could then justify the kind of
limits Representative Galvin had described.
Representative Galvin asked whether the legacy rate was
unrelated to the peer-to-peer rate.
Representative McCabe responded in the affirmative.
Representative Galvin asked if Representative McCabe had
considered introducing a bill limited to subpoena powers in
order to gather information before making any other
decisions.
Representative McCabe responded that he had not considered
the approach. He explained that the bill had come to him
"pre-packaged" and it had been carried in the Senate in the
previous year. He remarked that he had seen an opportunity
to advance the bill and had decided to proceed.
Representative Johnson remarked that members of the
committee all had inquiring minds, which was why they
served on the committee, and they could continue
questioning indefinitely. She commended Representative
McCabe for his persistence and noted that he had attempted
to advance the bill the previous year despite challenges.
She commented that it was always frustrating when
legislators worked hard on bills and the process required
persistence to complete. She expressed appreciation the
work that had been put into the bill.
9:58:54 AM
Co-Chair Josephson understood that there was an amendment
to the bill, but he wanted to make a comment before the
committee discussed the amendment. He understood that a
legal memo about the fairness of the bill (copy on file)
had been made available to the committee. He remarked that
the bill appeared to be inherently unfair because it was
unclear why Turo would be treated differently from brick-
and-mortar operations in terms of standing to litigate. He
pointed out that if Turo argued for a discount, it would
have no standing because the host paid the tax rather than
the platform. He added that the legal memo cited two
relevant cases, Stanek v. Greco, a 2003 decision, and
Wilson v. Municipality of Anchorage, a 1983 decision. He
explained that both addressed equal protection arguments in
economic circumstances, which received the lowest level of
judicial scrutiny.
Co-Chair Josephson elaborated that in one case, the court
had noted that freedom from disparate taxation lay at the
low end of the continuum of interests protected by equal
protection, which suggested there was little cause for
concern. However, the Stanek case raised the common
question of whether two groups treated differently were
similarly situated and therefore entitled to equal
treatment. He argued that there was not a strong case for
distinguishing between brick-and-mortar operators and Turo
hosts. He noted that the Wilson decision held that
disparate taxation must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and
must bear a fair and substantial relationship to a
legitimate governmental objective. He argued that he did
not see a clear justification for treating the two groups
differently. He emphasized that brick-and-mortar businesses
incurred greater expenses by definition, such as employees.
He remarked that while he was not overly concerned about
the issue, he believed it was important to discuss.
Representative McCabe and responded that the concerns would
be valid if the tax were applied directly to both brick-
and-mortar businesses and Turo hosts. However, he
emphasized that it was a pass-through tax, much like a
sales tax, and was paid by the renter rather than the host.
He explained that the same applied to brick-and-mortar
businesses, meaning the two groups were not being taxed
disparately. He compared the situation to the legislature
applying a percentage tax to alcohol, cigarettes, or food
products, or how municipalities applied local sales taxes.
He added that the legal memo referenced had been requested
by a member of the Senate who had carried the bill the
previous year.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the committee would take up the
bill again in the afternoon's meeting.
HB 123 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the afternoon meeting's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
10:03:46 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 62 2025 DPS HFIN Presentation.pdf |
HFIN 5/7/2025 9:00:00 AM |
HB 62 |
| HB 62 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 5/7/2025 9:00:00 AM |
HB 62 |
| HB 62 Sectional Analysis Version 34-GH1317 A.pdf |
HFIN 5/7/2025 9:00:00 AM |
HB 62 |
| HFIN HB 62 Sexual Assault Examination Kit Tracking Hearing Request.pdf |
HFIN 5/7/2025 9:00:00 AM |
HB 62 |
| HB 123 Amendment #1 Bynum 050225.pdf |
HFIN 5/7/2025 9:00:00 AM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Legal Memo 031325.pdf |
HFIN 5/7/2025 9:00:00 AM |
HB 123 |
| HB 62 Public Testimony Rec'd by 050625.pdf |
HFIN 5/7/2025 9:00:00 AM |
HB 62 |