02/13/2025 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB18 | |
| Presentation: Alaska Long Trail, Project Overview and Update | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 13, 2025
1:03 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ashley Carrick, Co-Chair
Representative Ted Eischeid, Co-Chair
Representative Genevieve Mina
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Elexie Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 18
"An Act relating to the transfer of a title on the death of the
owner; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION: ALASKA LONG TRAIL~ PROJECT OVERVIEW AND UPDATE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 18
SHORT TITLE: VEHICLES/BOATS: TRANSFER ON DEATH TITLE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAUSCHER
01/22/25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/25
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) TRA, STA
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor of HB 18, presented the
sponsor statement.
AZABEL ORDAZ, Staff
Representative George Rauscher
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime
sponsor, presented the sectional analysis for HB 18.
HALEY JOHNSTON, Deputy Director
Alaska Trails
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Alaska Long Trail."
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:25 PM
CO-CHAIR ASHLEY CARRICK called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Mina,
Stutes, McCabe, Tilton, Moore, Eischeid, and Carrick were
present at the call to order.
HB 18-VEHICLES/BOATS: TRANSFER ON DEATH TITLE
1:04:09 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 18, "An Act relating to the transfer of
a title on the death of the owner; and providing for an
effective date."
1:04:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, Alaska State Legislature,
paraphrased from the sponsor statement for HB 18 [copy included
in the committee packet] which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
The process of probate in the state of Alaska can take
anywhere from six months to several years, and can
cost family members and beneficiaries thousands,
potentially tens of thousands of dollars in legal and
filing fees. While the State Legislature has already
taken great strides to reduce the costs of probate,
there is still much room for improvement. House Bill
18 continues in spirit with the Uniform Real Property
Transfer on Death Act (URPTDA), which unanimously
passed both the House and Senate in 2014. URPTDA
created the Transfer on Death (TOD) deed, which allows
for non-probate transfers of real property. TOD deeds
allow Alaskans to select a beneficiary who will
receive the property at their passing and removes that
property from the process of probate. In 2016,
legislation similar to HB 18 was introduced, but the
legislation failed to pass that session. HB 18 is
nearly identical, although it expands the concept to
apply both to vehicles and boats that are issued
titles through the state. HB 18 continues the ongoing
effort to reduce the costs of probate for Alaskans and
creates a streamlined service through the DMV through
which they can designate beneficiaries for both cars
and boats through a simple form. The TOD titles will
be available for all boats and vehicles for which the
DMV provides titles, which also includes some mobile
manufactured homes under AS 45.29.102(66). The program
will be self-sustaining through fees. At no cost to
the state, HB 18 will allow countless Alaskans to pass
down boats, vehicles, and some manufactured homes to
beneficiaries with more ease, and will help simplify
and streamline the potentially complicated, costly,
and painful process of probate following the death of
a loved one.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER advised that the Senate State Affairs
Committee has indicated "willingness to hear and advance the
bill." He argued that given the bipartisan support in the past
it should "move swiftly through the process."
1:08:17 PM
AZABEL ORDAZ, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska
State Legislature, gave the sectional analysis of HB 18 [hard
copy included in the committee packet] which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1:
Adds a new section under AS 05.25 that allows owners
of boats, for which the Department of Administration
(DoA) issues titles, to obtain a transfer on death
(TOD) title.
Section 2: Amends AS 13.33.101(a) to add a transfer of
a boat or vehicle by a TOD title to the existing list
of acceptable nonprobate transferable property.
Section 3: Creates a provision under AS 13.33 for a
transfer on death (TOD) title for boats and vehicles.
Creates and defines the mechanism through the Division
of Motor Vehicles (DMV), by which individuals will
obtain, revoke, or change their transfer on death
title and defines the parameters of the transfer on
death title.
(a)-(c) Obtaining a TOD Title
• Creates a provision under AS 13.33 for a transfer on
death title for vehicles and boats for which DoA
issues titles.
o This includes some manufactured homes for which the
DMV issues titles under AS 45.29.102(66). These homes
are without a permanent foundation and transportable
in one or more sections.
• Requires that the transfer of title to the
designated beneficiary occurs when the sole owner or
last surviving joint owner of the vehicle dies.
• Requires that owners of the boats or vehicles file a
form through the DMV and pay associated fees to apply
for a TOD title.
• Limits the TOD titles to two beneficiaries.
(d) TOD titles effective without notice or
consideration
Provides that TOD titles will not require notice or
acceptance by the designated beneficiary
Provides that TOD titles will not be subject to
consideration, the process by which there is an
exchange or "quid pro quo" required from the recipient
of the assets.
o Language taken from TOD deed statute under AS
13.48.060.
(e) TOD titles are nontestamentary
• States that TOD titles are nontestamentary, meaning
that the associated vehicles do not need to be
provided for in the decedents will.
(f)-(g) Revocation or Change to TOD titles.
• Provides that the owner may revoke or change the
designated beneficiary on the TOD at any time without
the beneficiary's consent.
• Explains the process by which owners may revoke or
change a TOD title.
o The owner can either assign and deliver the
certificate of title for the vehicle to another
person, thereby revoking the TOD title, or;
o file with the DMV to reissue the title without a
designated beneficiary or with a different designated
beneficiary.
(h) Designated beneficiaries right to disclaim
interest
• Allows designated beneficiaries to refuse the boat
or vehicle designated to them in a TOD title.
o Language taken from TOD deed statute under AS
13.48.100.
(i) TOD titles subject to decedent's creditors,
contracts, etc.
• Subjects the TOD title to creditor's claims against
the owner's estate, as well as to other interests,
contracts, liens, encumbrances, assignments, and other
interests.
• These interests remain attached to the boat or
vehicle after it is transferred to the designated
beneficiary.
1:12:33 PM
MS. ORDAZ continued the sectional analysis, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
(j-m) Enforcing liability upon TOD titles.
• Imposes the same procedures for enforcing liability
upon TOD titles that is applied to TOD deeds under AS
13.48.110 and AS 13.48.088.
o Provides that the estate may enforce liability
against boats or vehicles with TOD titles if the
owner's estate does not cover an allowed claim.
o States that if there are multiple vehicles and/or
boats, and a liability exists in the deceased's
estate, the liability will be apportioned to each
asset in proportion to its net value.
o Requires that a proceeding to enforce a liability
must begin within 12 months of the owner's passing and
can only begin once proper notification to
beneficiaries has occurred.
o Stipulates that TOD titles do not affect rights of
ownership before the owner's death, and do not affect
rights of the designated beneficiary or creditors of
the owner(s).
o TOD titles do not give legal or equitable preference
to the designated beneficiary.
o TOD titles do not affect designated beneficiaries'
eligibility for state public assistance. (n-p) Uniform
standard of survivorship, requirements to receive TOD
title.
• Requires that the designated beneficiary survive the
previous owner by 120 hours.
• Requires that the designated beneficiary submit
proof of the owner's death and an application and
associated fees to the DMV.
• If there are two beneficiaries listed on the TOD
title, they become joint owners.
(q) TOD titles may not be changed by other instruments
• Provides that TOD titles may only be changed by the
process outlined in section 3 and not by a will or any
other instrument.
(r) Gives the DoA authority to develop regulations to
implement the TOD titles, establish necessary forms
and fees, etc.
(s) Definitions
Section 4:
Amends AS 13.48.110(c) to add a person acting on
behalf of the surviving spouse of the decedent to the
list of people who may demand to enforce liability
against the decedents' property.
Section 5:
Adds a new section to AS 28.10.275, relating to
vehicle titles, to clearly state that owners of
vehicles for which the DMV issues titles may obtain a
TOD title.
Section 6:
Gives the DoA authority to develop necessary
regulations.
Section 7:
Applies an immediate effective date to section 6 of
the bill to allow the department to develop
regulations.
Section 8:
Applies an effective date of July 1, 2025 to the
legislation except for section 7.
1:15:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER advised the committee that his chief of
staff was not available for questions.
1:16:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether the proposed
legislation is exactly the same as [House Bill 81, heard during
the Thirty-Third Alaska State Legislature].
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed the understanding that the
proposed legislation is a refile of House Bill 81.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that [House
Bill 81] passed out of the House under the previous legislature.
1:16:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, in response to a question from
Representative Stutes, expressed the understanding that HB 18 is
the same as the version of House Bill 81 that had passed out of
the House in the previous legislature. He corrected the answer
by adding that the fiscal note [for House Bill 81] had been
changed. In response to a follow-up question, he confirmed that
after the initial cost to implement the proposed legislation,
there would be no cost to the state; therefore, the fiscal note
would be zero.
1:18:29 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK noted the cost of implementation on the fiscal
note. She questioned whether this had been part of the previous
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded that the fiscal note was
changed to an indeterminate amount. He pointed out the analysis
on the fiscal note indicated that 600 hours of programming would
be needed to implement conforming information. He explained
that this was the reason for the change.
1:19:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON clarified that if two beneficiaries were
listed on the Transfer on Death (TOD) title, they would become
joint owners.
1:20:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, in response to a question from Co-Chair
Carrick, explained that the proposed legislation would not
include airplane transfers because aircraft would fall under
federal regulation.
1:21:12 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that HB 18 was held over.
1:21:35 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:21 p.m. to 1:23 p.m.
^PRESENTATION: Alaska Long Trail, Project Overview and Update
PRESENTATION: Alaska Long Trail, Project Overview and Update
1:23:43 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business
would be a presentation on the Alaska Long Trail.
1:24:05 PM
HALEY JOHNSTON, Deputy Director, Alaska Trails, gave a
PowerPoint presentation, titled "Alaska Long Trail" [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. She stated that Alaska
Trails is a nonprofit organization based in Southcentral Alaska;
however, it does statewide trail work. She discussed its
volunteer program and its work on the public lands in the state,
adding that there are also paid trail crews working in a variety
of locations. Alaska Trails also helps communities and other
organizations with trail policy and planning, and she named two
of these projects. She pointed out the most publicized project
the organization is working on is the Alaska Long Trail.
MS. JOHNSTON stated that the Alaska Long Trail began as an
economic development project. She stated that long trails
across the country provide an economic benefit to small
communities across the country, as the communities are connected
by the trails, and they become a destination for recreation.
She stated that as of 2023 the outdoor recreation economy of
Alaska is $3.14 billion, as seen on slide 2. She noted the
number of jobs this creates in the state. She highlighted that
the state estimates 81 percent of its residents participate in
outdoor recreation, which is the highest in the country.
1:27:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, in regard to outdoor recreation resulting
in 4.6 percent of the state's gross domestic product (GDP),
questioned whether this includes activities with motorized
vehicles.
MS. JOHNSTON affirmed that this number encompasses all outdoor
recreation.
1:28:08 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK, in response to a question from Representative
Stutes, clarified that the Fish Creek Trail in Anchorage is not
part of the Alaska Long Trail.
1:28:46 PM
MS. JOHNSTON, in response to a question from Representative
Tilton, clarified that the outdoor recreation economy is studied
federally and is the source of all the statistics on slide 2.
She stated that per the federal definition, outdoor recreation
includes motorized use, sales at recreational stores, and the
jobs associated with outdoor recreation. In response to a
follow-up question, she stated that this information is broken
down by industry by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
1:30:22 PM
MS. JOHNSTON, in response to a question from Co-Chair Eischeid
concerning the return on investment (ROI) of outdoor recreation,
clarified that the definition of "public open space spending"
includes city and state parks, recreation areas, and any open
space open to the public for recreational use. In response to a
follow-up question, she provided her understanding that for
every dollar invested in outdoor recreation in the Matanuska-
Susitna (Mat-Su) Valley, the return is around five times. She
added that the study producing the numbers did not include land
acquisition, but it did include improvements to land that
facilitated public use.
1:32:50 PM
MS. JOHNSTON, in response to a question from Representative
Stutes, stated that there are no comprehensive economic ROI
studies of the recreation economy for the entire state, only for
the Mat-Su Valley.
1:33:56 PM
MS. JOHNSTON moved to slide 3 and described the vision of the
Alaska Long Trail, which is 500 miles in length connecting
communities from Seward to Fairbanks. She commented on the
diversity of these communities and the economic benefit that
they would receive. On slide 4, she listed the reasons for
choosing this route for the trail, including landowner support,
manageable costs, and the already existing trail system.
1:36:25 PM
MS. JOHNSTON, in response to a question from Co-Chair Carrick
concerning the already existing trails, said that Resurrection
Pass is not included in the project. She explained the
reasoning behind the exclusion of this trail. In response to a
follow-up question, she stated that Crow Pass Trail, K'esugi
Ridge Trail, and the Curry Ridge Trail connector are included in
the Alaska Long Trail.
1:38:27 PM
MS. JOHNSTON, in response to a question from Representative
Stutes concerning what would be allowed on the trails, stated
that the land manager determines what is allowed on any section
of trail. She explained this further.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK summarized that a person could navigate on foot
the entire distance of the Alaska Long Trail; however, only in
certain sections could there be other uses, such as equestrian
and snowmachine usage.
1:39:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that motorized
use is prohibited on National Scenic Trails (NST). He
questioned how this would be mitigated for the Alaska Long
Trail.
MS. JOHNSTON responded that the outdoor recreation economy
created NST. She explained that every time a trail is
designated NST, the National Trails Act would be amended to give
the new designee its own usage designation. She gave examples
of motorized use on sections of NSTs.
MS. JOHNSTON noted the bipartisan support for the trail, as
listed on slide 5. She discussed the issues some organizations
have with creating a national trail, such as the federal
overreach that would occur.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE pointed out that there are two Mat-Su
Borough resolutions in opposition to the designation of the
Alaska Long Trail as NST. He argued that there is not as much
bipartisan support as the slide suggests.
1:44:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES questioned the National Trails Act
amendment process for NSTs.
MS. JOHNSTON responded that a federal administrator would be
created to manage the use of the newly designated NST. She
further explained how the Iditarod National Historic Trail is
federally managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), but
only in the sections that cross federal lands.
1:45:57 PM
MS. JOHNSTON, in response to a question from Co-Chair Eischeid,
said that the support expressed for the Alaska Long Trail is
conceptual and nuanced, with some groups in support expressing
opposition to designating the Alaska Long Trail as NST. She
stated there is a feasibility study on whether the trail should
be designated NST. She stated that she would forward the
letters of support from the entities listed on the slide to the
committee.
1:48:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that the state's GDP
listed on the previous slide mostly involves [revenue from]
motorized vehicles. He read the language concerning motorized
usage on trails designated NST and said this language "has
everybody up in arms" because a federal secretary would be
determining the usage. He continued that the Alaska Long Trail
would create a half-mile corridor in the state that could not be
crossed with a motorized vehicle.
MS. JOHNSTON argued that the federal government would not own
the trail.
1:50:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON informed the committee that because of the
possible federal overreach the Alaska Snowmachine Alliance and
the Alaska Outdoor Council are not in support of the Alaska Long
Trail. She questioned whether there would be a better way to
display the support for the trail than naming it "bipartisan."
MS. JOHNSTON stated that all the organizations listed on the
slide support the trail as a concept; however, some are
supportive of NST designation, while others are not.
1:52:37 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:52 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.
1:53:42 PM
MS. JOHNSTON moved to slide 6 and explained the NST designation.
She paraphrased from the slide, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
? NSTs are designated by Congress to provide for
maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the
conservation and enjoyment of nationally significant
scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities.
? National Trails System Act of 1968
? NST system includes 11 trails around the country,
including the Appalachian Trail and Pacific Crest
Trail
? Opens the door to federal funding
? NST designation does not put restrictions on land
use for non-federal land managers
? Motorized use - where already allowed - would not be
impacted
MS. JOHNSTON continued by giving examples of motorized use on
parts of the NST trail systems.
1:55:13 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK questioned whether a vehicle would be able to
cross the trail where a road or driveway already exists.
MS. JOHNSTON affirmed that individuals would be able to cross
trails on roads and drives that already allow vehicle use. She
reiterated that the National Trails Act would be amended with
every new trail.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK questioned what would happen with new
development after the implementation of the trail.
MS. JOHNSTON responded that state statute provides that the new
development would have to recognize usage of recreational
easements. She added that state statute would protect the
[owners] of the new development from liability if anything
happened on the easement. In response to a follow-up question
on the amount of federal funding for NST designation, she said
the federal funding for the project would be helpful for the
project's completion, as it would be twice the amount of state
funding. She further explained that federal funding is
prohibited on nonfederal lands in the state; therefore, NST
status would allow more funding for nonfederal trail sections.
1:59:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that 71
percent of the Continental Divide Trail had been available for
motorized usage, but now this is down to 23 percent. He
expressed the belief that this is because it is managed by BLM.
He questioned whether BLM would be responsible for the entire
Alaska Long Trail, if it is built.
MS. JOHNSTON clarified that sections of the trail managed by
municipalities and other entities would still be managed by
these. She put forth that the motorized usage has decreased on
the Continental Divide Trail because the trail has been moved
off the road system.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the funding for maintenance of
the proposed trail.
MS. JOHNSTON responded that there is not a known cost per mile
for the Alaska Long Trail, but the funding so far has gone to
repairing trails, maintenance, and improving access points.
2:04:11 PM
MS. JOHNSTON moved to slide 7, titled "National Scenic Trail
Designation Timeline," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
? January 2023 - Appropriations bill included $1M for
the BLM to conduct feasibility study
? Fall 2023 - BLM hires contractor for study
? Spring-Summer 2024 - Public feedback process with 5
in-person and 3 virtual meetings,
? Fall 2024 - Interviews with land managers
O Spring 2025 - First draft study released for public
feedback (no recommendation)
O Fall 2025 - Final study (including a recommendation)
will be submitted to Congress
MS. JOHNSTON noted that when the first draft of the feasibility
study is complete, it would not have a recommendation. However,
the information would be released to the public, who would then
have an opportunity to give feedback. She explained that when
the final study is released a recommendation would be made,
which would go to the U.S. Congress, where action may or may not
be taken. She added that Alaska Trails is not managing the
process; rather, BLM manages this.
2:07:11 PM
MS. JOHNSTON moving to slide 8 addressed the state funding for
trails. She said that $6.7 million has been received over the
last three fiscal years, and in turn, this has funded 14
projects and 4 grantees. She stated that some of the funded
projects were for planning, while most were for maintenance and
rerouting trails. She expressed the opinion that the funding
went for "chronically deferred maintenance."
2:08:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned ROIs from trails.
MS. JOHNSTON clarified that some of ROI for trails comes from
trailhead parking. She expressed interest in having a cost
analysis for recreational trails. She shared her perspective on
the economic impact of the recreational access, explaining that
it feeds into the business community.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that these are
secondary benefits, and he questioned whether there would be a
cost benefit [for building the Alaska Long Trail]. He expressed
interest in how much the state would make.
MS. JOHNSTON explained that state parks have receipts from the
usage of parking lots, trailheads, and cabins. For example, she
suggested that the Chugach State Park is economically positive.
2:13:19 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:13 p.m. to 2:18 p.m.
2:18:28 PM
MS. JOHNSTON, moving to slide 9, discussed the funds received
from nonstate entities. She pointed out that private,
corporate, and foundation funds have been received, and she read
from a list of these, as seen on the slide. She pointed out
that the federal funds received total $11.9 million.
MS. JOHNSTON moved to slide 10 and spoke to the significant
construction projects. She pointed out the state and federal
funding for these projects, as seen on the slide.
2:23:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON addressed the slide, titled "Alaska Long
Trail - Other Funders." She questioned the percentage of
private and corporate funding.
MS. JOHNSTON said that since 2021 there has been about $2
million in funding from private entities. In response to a
follow-up question, she stated that these donors were
specifically giving to the Alaska Long Trail and its associated
projects. In response, she stated that the total funding for
the Alaska Long Trail is broken down into $12 million from the
federal government, $6.7 million from the state, and $2 million
from private donors.
2:25:05 PM
MS. JOHNSTON, in response to a question from Co-Chair Eischeid,
affirmed that the Eklutna Lakeside Trail is part of the Alaska
Long Trail and the funding received for this trail was in
support of the Alaska Long Trail. She added that it is one of
the most used trails in the Chugach State Park.
2:27:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that the
Recreational Trails Program (RTP) funding comes from motor fuel
taxes and rental car tax. He questioned whether this money goes
to the state parks.
MS. JOHNSTON clarified that rental car tax in the state funds
about 60 percent of the budget for state parks; however, RTP
funds are federal funds that pass through the state.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE informed the committee that motorized
vehicle trail users are arguing that they pay for trails they
cannot use, and this is causing "a real problem for many
Alaskans."
MS. JOHNSTON stated that the RTP program has a separate amount
of money used only for projects involving motorized usage.
2:31:07 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK asked that the committee be provided with
information about the breakdown of trail system users and
revenue.
MS. JOHNSTON stated that the data available would be provided.
2:32:16 PM
MS. JOHNSTON, moving from slide 11 to slide 14, displayed
pictures of various trail projects. She gave details on each
project. She moved to slide 15 and reviewed what is expected
next for the Alaska Long Trail. She reiterated that the
feasibility study would be released this year.
2:36:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE questioned the estimated cost of the Alaska
Long Trail.
MS. JOHNSTON responded that there is not a cost estimate for the
entire trail, as some of the segments are in the planning stage.
In response to a follow-up question, she stated that there are
many phases, and the first phase addresses Southcentral Alaska.
She estimated that funding is up to $20 million. She stated
that with another $5 million there would be connectivity from
the north side of Anchorage to Seward.
2:38:24 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID thanked the presenter and commented on the
"good discussion." He suggested that a component of any
innovative project is the fear of change and suggested that this
be addressed going forward. He requested copies of any economic
study available.
2:40:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed agreement that the budget is
important, as there needs to be a return on any investment by
the state.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed support for the outdoor recreation
economy. She noted that the Alaska Long Trail is just one
aspect of the outdoor recreation economy. She gave closing
comments.
2:42:17 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:42
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 18 VerA.pdf |
HTRA 2/13/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 18 |
| HB 18 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 2/13/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 18 |
| HB 18 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 2/13/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 18 |
| HB 18 Previous Letters of Support 3/2024.pdf |
HTRA 2/13/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 18 |
| HB 18 Ver A Fiscal Note 02.07.25.pdf |
HTRA 2/13/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 18 |
| 02.13.25 AK Long Trail.pdf |
HTRA 2/13/2025 1:00:00 PM |