Committee compares three theft bills; retailers and police urge tougher tools while marketplaces warn against a fee

The Alaska House Judiciary Committee on March 5 conducted a side‑by‑side comparison of three theft-related bills — HB77 (mail theft), HB97 (organized retail theft and a marketplace facilitator fee), and HB106 (the administration's organized theft bill) — and then heard public testimony from retailers, law enforcement and business owners.

Deputy Attorney General John Skidmore, Criminal Division, walked members through staff-prepared comparison documents that the committee used to contrast the bills. Skidmore summarized core differences: HB77 (sponsored by Representative Colombe) would expand mail theft to theft in the second degree (a class C felony) regardless of the item’s value and explicitly includes private carriers; HB106 (the administration’s bill) would treat theft of mail as a theft in the third degree (a class A misdemeanor) but includes organized‑theft provisions and specifically adds medical records to the higher felony classification. HB97 (sponsored by Representative Zach Fields) targets organized retail theft and proposes lowering monetary thresholds across theft statutes and creates a designated marketplace facilitator fee to fund local law-enforcement responses.

"HB77 is a bill ... that addresses mail theft specifically," Skidmore told the committee, and his comparison chart separated the bills into categories including mail theft, medical records, organized theft, and exemptions. He noted HB106’s medical-records language and said the terms remain broad and could benefit from tighter definitions.

Ryan Sheldon, staff to Representative Colombe (HB77), said the sponsor’s intent is to give prosecutors an additional tool: "We're trying to give the state of Alaska a stepping‑stone tool ... If that theft of mail resulted in identity theft, then we can escalate ... up to the class B felony." Sheldon also told the committee HB77 explicitly defines mail to include common carriers such as UPS and FedEx and includes exemptions for agencies acting in their official duties.

Representative Zach Fields, sponsor of HB97, and his staff described the proposed marketplace fee as a targeted user fee to support local law enforcement responding to a rise in organized retail theft tied to high‑volume online marketplaces. "The proposed fee ... is simply designed to help ensure that there are resources and local law enforcement to combat the theft that is being driven by a shift to high volume online marketplaces," Fields said.

Retail-security managers, police and business owners testified in support of tougher tools or the proposed fund. Mariah Mendoza, retail security director for the Anchorage Fifth Avenue Mall, described repeat, organized bulk thefts of high‑end goods and said shoplifting incidents have become more organized: "They have cars waiting for them ... they are very bold in the fact that they take knowledge ... what the threshold limits are for the crimes that they're committing." Captain Nathan Werner of the Fairbanks Police Department said repeat offenders and a lack of accountability have driven much of the problem; he offered local case counts and said retail theft reports have risen year‑over‑year.

Small business owner David Cabot described an employee theft scheme that he said was followed by resale through secondary outlets and social‑media marketplaces. Robert Mackey, an Eagle River resident, testified in support of HB77 after his paycheck was stolen from a mailbox and described broader identity‑theft risks from mail theft.

Not all testimony favored expanding criminal penalties or imposing a marketplace fee. Rose Feliciano of TechNet, which represents digital marketplaces, submitted written opposition to HB97 and said the proposed fee would be discriminatory to marketplace sellers; she recommended considering an organized‑retail‑crime task force model that coordinates state and local law enforcement, federal partners and businesses.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about definitions (for example, how HB106 defines medical records), whether private carriers are covered under HB106, and the effect of lowering theft‑value thresholds proposed in HB97. Deputy Attorney General Skidmore and staff said some omissions appear to be drafting choices rather than policy exclusions and that definitions could be tightened by amendment.

The committee did not take final votes on HB77, HB97 or HB106 during the hearing. Chair Gray said the bills would be set aside for further work. The committee set an amendment deadline of Monday, March 10 at 5 p.m. for HB77, HB97 and HB106 and scheduled further consideration in future committee hearings.