Good afternoon. I call this meeting of the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee to order let the record reflected as 1 30 p.m.
On Tuesday January 27th
2026 present today or senator Dunbar, senator Yunt, myself, Senator Merrick. This afternoon
we will hold hearings on House Bill 33, conflict of interest for the Board of Fisheries and Game and
House bill 26 statewide public and community transit plan. First we'll start with
House Bill 33, Conflict of Interest for the Boards of Fishery and Gay by Representative Stoots.
This is the first hearing on this bill.
Representative, a few in your staff, Matt Greening, would like to come forward, put yourself on the record and introduce your bill, and
please let the records reflect that Senator Olsen was here at 130.
Community Regional Affairs Committee, appreciate it.
For the record, my name is Representative Louise Stutz.
I represent House District Number Five,
which is Kodiak Cordova, Seward,
and several smaller coastal communities.
I want to thank you, Chair Merrick and committee members
for hearing House Bill 33 today.
This legislation is near and dear to my heart
and has been a priority of the Fisheries Committee
for many years.
It's also a priority of the user groups involved
in our fisheries, and it is instrumental
in the process of implementing our fishery.
So thank you again for hearing this.
Unfortunately.
Madam chair the transportation committee of which I'm also a member is another one of my priorities and Commissioner Anderson is there today presenting and so
with that I am going to
Respectfully excuse myself and turn this presentation over to my chief of staff matt greening. Thank you representative mr. I appreciate it
Thank you, Madam Chair members of the committee for the record Mac Greening staff to representative Louie's Stutes
Before you today is house bill 33 conflict of interest for The Board of Fisheries and game
This legislation would allow members Of the Board Of Fisheries in game to deliberate meaning debate on
Proposals for which they have a declared conflict Of interest or personal interest
Or financial according to as 39 53 the executive branch ethics act
Currently, board members are required to divulge conflict
of interest if they or their immediate family members
are involved in the subject being deliberated on.
The conflicted member can then no longer vote on
and unfortunately can no longer speak
to the proposal at hand.
They must leave the table and sit with the public.
Consistent with current law, House Bill 33 still
precludes a conflicted members from voting
and only allows them to impart their knowledge
of a particular fishery or hunt before recusing themselves
from the vote.
The qualifications for appointment to the board of fisheries and board a game are quite different from professional licensing boards.
Instead of being chosen as professionals in their field, members are selected based on their knowledge and ability in the field of action of the Board and with the view to providing diversity of interest and points of view.
However, I would pose to committee, how can anyone benefit from knowledge or different points viewed if they are not allowed to be shared?
Shouldn't resource management be based of all available information?
Often in fishing, a financial or personal interest is tied to that member's immediate
family and is tie to a knowledge of that fishery.
I think particularly in places in rural Alaska,
a lot of family members own permits that are involved in a variety of different fisheries.
The definition of an immediate family member is pretty broad and it isn't tied
So a person who has an aunt, uncle, or brother who owns a certain type of fishing permit
or even owns the permit themselves may be the only person
who understands the nuances of what's being discussed.
Likewise, a board member whose family are guides or lodge owners
may the the person that understands how that fishery or hunt is prosecuted.
Another concern with the current conflict of interest policy is transparency,
public trust in the public process.
Board members who are conflicted often still offer their input,
but it's off the record during board breaks and at-eases,
and it is the sponsor's intent,
and I think it was the ethics act intent that
any discussions of this nature be had on the
record rather than either through public testimony or,
you know, when the board actually is in its session.
Both the Board of Fisheries and Board
of Game are tasked with allocating
Alaska's most precious resources.
And so, again, I think it's the sponsor's intent
that all this information be given to the board
and to public and the agency
when they're making these final deliberations.
Finally, we'll say that the selection process,
as everyone on this committee, is aware
for these two boards are highly contentious.
There, it is a composition that has kind of, you know,
reached equilibrium with the public, the legislature
and governor on his appointees.
And when a person represents part of that balance is silenced
Final deliberations happen when actual decisions are made and amendments are taken up, I believe it erodes the integrity of the process.
I will note that opposition to this bill claims that members can already testify on a proposal as a member of
the public, which is true, but I would pose that it would be akin to asking a
member this committee to step down and offer public testimony on House Bill 33 and then not be at the table when there's
deliberations on what to do with the proposal, bringing agencies before you.
So in our view, the opportunity for public testimony is good for a board member,
but it is not remotely the same as being a Board member and being able to impart that knowledge
on the record when amendments are taken up.
And I would also say that, you know, as I pointed out,
the final deliberations are really when all the decisions are made.
So there is that public-testimony opportunity
When you know changes are proposed and when there's something to act on it's good to have that member up in front of the board
And I would say just to give an idea of a scope of their recusal rates the Board of Fisheries rate was 28%
recusals proposal proposals recused
From 2021 to 2022 it was 27% in 2022 to 2023 cycle and as a snapshot in 2018
The board chairman, John Jensen, was conflicted out of one-third of the proposals at the
Southeast Finn Fish Meeting, and that was actually because he and his family are very
involved in both commercial and sports fishing.
And so in closing, Madam Chair, I would remind the committee that this bill still precludes
a member from voting.
It just allows them to debate and act as a members of board up until that moment when
The sponsor believes that allowing members with expertise in particular fields to
deliberate will help the boards make more informed decisions, will lead to stronger
resource management statewide, and will align the process with intent as far as
board members benefiting from knowledge and diversity of viewpoints.
With that, Madam Chair, I'm happy to answer any questions or walk through
documents, whatever your will is.
Is there opponents of this bill?
Through the chair, Senator Olsen, there are several opponents to this Bill.
You'll see in the opposition testimony, I believe one of them is the Keeneye River Sports Fishing Association.
There is also a letter that came in this morning from the Chit and the Dip Netters Association, and you will note that there's a
but I would note just briefly on that,
if you look at the recusal rates
from the Board of Fisheries to the board of game,
the recursive rates are very low for the
Board game.
It's just less of an issue on the
board and then speaking with user groups,
not to overwork this answer,
but we've been working on this bill for a while.
Nobody wanted the
Board
of Game and the
Board Of Fish separated.
They all wanted to,
they meet jointly as a board
and everybody wanted
to have equal treatment
for both the
Board
of
Game
and Board
of
Thank you, Senator Young.
Great presentation.
I actually think you answered some of the questions I had, but I just want to confirm.
So, right now, if somebody's conflicted, they can still give public testimony, is that correct?
Through the Chair, senator Young, that's correct.
And then, can they follow up?
Yes.
do written and then the follow-up to that question would be because I think they can is if they're
not at the table then they written testimony that they gave or the you know can that be referenced
by other members. So if the if, you, know, right in but there are area of expertise or whatever
their opinions and thoughts are on it can not be reference during deliberations.
Through the chair senator yand that's a very good question
And I don't think I've ever had that come up before and I'd be happy to get the answer for you and get back to you as soon as possible
Okay, yeah
Thank you senator Dunbar
Thank You madam chair, so I'm looking at this letter of opposition from the chitna tip matters association
and
It's interesting the
way these conflict of interest
Statutes are designed right now. Is it only a financial interest or is it a broader interest?
And the reason I asked, I think most Alaskans, you know,
I'm from a commercial fishing town and a lot of people are involved in commercial
fishing, but almost every Alasket is involved and fishing in one way or another.
You know you could be a subsistence user,
you can be personal use user. Are those folks also conflicted out on those kind of questions?
Could you, just as personal use, would you be conflicted out or is it only if people have a
financial interest? Through the Chair, Senator Dunbar, it's both a financial and a personal interest
and those are defined, a Financial Interest is defined in AS 3952-960 and that basically means
a Financial Interest that's significant, which is $5,000 or more, but a Personal Interest
And it is in there, so a personal interest
means an interest held or involved by a public officer
or the officer's immediate family member or parent,
including membership in any organization,
whether fraternal, nonprofit, for-profit, charitable,
or political from which, or as a result of which a person
or organization receives a benefit.
And so when it comes to looking at applying these,
it's a lot easier to prove
a $5,000 financial threshold as it comes to owning a permit or owning
a boat or an interest in a fishery than it is to prove a personal interest
when somebody simply participates in sport fisherY. So it'd be found that
the recusal rates are higher on commercial fishermen and they tend to be
higher in areas where there's a strong financial
impact but it's both a Personal or a financial interest of you or your
a comment than a question. Just fishing is so central to the culture of lots of people
in Alaska. And for example, if you were a member of the Ditnerders Association, not
just you Dipnip, but you're a members of this association, then clearly it's a big
part of your life. But I would assume that the dipnet association would be opposed to
a rule that said any time anything happened on the Chitney River, they had to recuse
You know what I mean?
And so it is interesting, the way it's currently structured,
it seems like it, is kind of disproportionately impacting
one group, like you said, because it
is easier to prove.
But I think even they themselves,
the dipnetters or the subsistence users,
would argue that their connection to this fishery
is every bit as important as the folks who
are who have a commercial interest.
That's all that I'm Chair.
Thank you, Senator Dunbar.
Anything further?
Thank you, Mr. Greening. We will invite your invited testifier up this afternoon
We have Tracy Welch the executive director of the United Fisherman of Alaska
Miss Welch welcome to the committee if you could state your name and affiliation and begin your inviting testimony
Thank You for being here
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Merrick, members of the committee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today before you, for
the record. My name is Tracy Welch, and I am the Executive Director for United
Fishermen of Alaska. For those of you who may not be aware, or
maybe unfamiliar, UFA is the Statewide Commercial Fishing Trade Association,
and we currently represent 34 commercial fishing organizations who participate in
state fisheries and federal fisheries off Alaska's coast.
I'd like to thank the bill's sponsor and staff for a great presentation,
over the years for House Bill 33 and its various iterations.
UFA strongly supports House bill 33.
We've already submitted written testimony
to the committee in support of the bill.
So I'll keep my comments relatively brief today
in the interest of time.
But I will just say that UFAs long advocated
for allowing Board of Fisheries members
to participate, but to abstain from voting
when they're considered to have a conflict of interest.
As we know, Alaska commercial fisheries
fisheries, and as such, issues facing board members
are often unique to specific areas and species,
which oftentimes is far outside of the knowledge base
of many of members of a board who serve.
This bill would allow boardmembers
who have subject matter expertise,
the ability to stay at the table during those discussions
and be able to participate in what a specific proposal means,
speak to the allocative aspects of
the proposal if necessary, but most importantly,
that other board members may be confused or not understanding the effects of the intent of
the proposal before them. To be clear, the conflicted member would not be allowed to make any amendments,
substitute motions, vote on amendments. Vote on the proposed or vote
on whether proposal should be brought back for reconsideration. In conclusion, we believe that
this bill would improve the deliberative process at the Board of Fish and Board
of Game and would lead to more informed and balanced fisheries management decisions and
Thank you. Questions for Ms. Welch? Seeing none, thank you for being here today.
And with that we will move to public testimony on House Bill 33. I will open public
testimony. Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify to House bill 33?
the Executive Director of the Kenai River Sports Fishing Association in Soldotna.
Welcome, Ms. Martin. Please place yourself on the record and begin your testimony.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of
the committee for the Record. My name is Shannon Martin and I'm the
Executive director of Kena River Sport Fishing
Association and i'm calling in today to oppose House Bill 33.
Kena River Sportfishing Association is a 501c3 nonprofit dedicated to ensuring the sustainability
of the Kenai and Alaska fisheries. Since 1984, the association has been a leading advocate
for fisheries conservation in Alaska. Chris has long advocated against modifying the
ethical standards surrounding conflicts of interest for board members serving on the board of fish.
The current conflict of interest procedures already allow for a conflicted board member
to participate in the public process on matters where they have a direct financial interest.
This is stated in that HP33 research, ADF and GA policy, and recusal should be contained
within your documents.
Board members who are recused from taking official action on a proposal may participate
as a general member of the public, including providing public testimony and discussing
the proposal as the member in the committee of whole process.
Now, for those of you who aren't familiar with the Board of Fish process, Committee
specific proposals, and the board members can ask them questions.
This is either in opposition or support.
To further clarify, board
members, can share their knowledge, expertise,
and opinions on proposals in which they are conflicted,
but only as members of the general public.
So during a Board of Fish meeting,
public testimony allows three minutes per individual to speak,
after which the Board can
ask the questions they have of a testifier.
And then in the next step is the committee of the whole process where the board interacts
and asks direct questions to the state agencies, proponents, or opponents of a proposal.
Members of public, including conflicted members, are allowed another 10 minutes to
Following the committee of the whole work, the board enters into their former deliberations.
This is what we're speaking to right now.
Think of this step as the closing arguments on the matter and the final opportunity for
board members to sway one way or another.
During this depth, The conflicted members, as you know, recuse themselves and join the
public in observing the deliberations without directly influencing them.
deliberations are a formal phase of a meeting. This time is reserved solely for the board
and they ask any questions they may have of the department. And this is also the time when the
board ensures that their decision-making process has been incorporated, directed,
under statute, and where they establish board intent. It sets the record,
and I'll say it another way the deliberations phase establishes how a proposal may be implemented
So, allowing a conflicted individual to have influence over how allocations or regulations
are interpreted and implemented, even if the influence isn't the final vote, is inappropriate.
In conclusion, Chris believes loosening the ethical standards to allow board members
influence proposals that they have a financial interest in will only undermine the integrity
of the board.
Thank you Ms. Martin. Any questions?
Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next also in Saldatna is Ted's breaker. Welcome to the committee. Please place yourself on the record and begin your
testimony
Madam Chair, Thank You very much for the operating and testifying this afternoon. Again for
the records. My name is Chad Stryker. I live in
as a wildlife biologist soon after my retirement I was appointed to the board of game and I spent
the next 18 years six continuous terms on the Board of Game. So the conflict of interest was
always a really serious issue with the border game. And what we generally dealt with were guides.
that had a financial benefit from adopting a proposal or refusing a
proposal and whatever pages like this came up first off you know at the
beginning of the meeting we always have a disclosure statement
and people that have had conflict of interest with
disclosed those early on and then later during the
deliberations they would be they were recusing
As far as lack of information or knowledge provided to the board, we always felt on the
board again that that information was certainly available during public testimony, and even
people with conflicts of interest could talk to people in public pestimony or urine the
for people to transfer this information to board members.
So as far as not allowing this bill to go forward,
I am representing myself today,
that I'm not in support of this Bill.
I think the system in the past has worked well.
I thinks it's a very open public process,
probably one of the best ones in a country.
And I would not like to see anything change.
I worry about transparency and integrity of the board if a person that has a financial benefit
is allowed to sway other board members. Even if they don't get a chance to vote,
they would still have an opportunity to talk other Board members into their position. So
Madam Chair, in conclusion, I do not support this. I think the way this system works now has been
And I thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
Thank you, Mr. Spraker.
Any questions?
Seeing none, thank for your testimony.
Our final testifier from Fairbanks is Charles Derrick,
president of the Chitna Dippnetters Association.
Welcome to the committee.
Please place yourself on the record and begin your
testimony Yes, my name is
Charles Derek.
I am the president
of Chittna-Dippnets Association here.
based in Fairbanks. We are a 501c4 nonprofit organization.
Out of chair and committee members I would like to just like
to reiterate CBA's opposition to HB House Bill 33 and ask you to refer to CDA's email to the
up in the established board of fish and board game checks
and balances dealing with member conflict of interest
pertaining to a publicly submitted proposal.
If a board member has vested personal or financial interest
in resource that the proposal addresses he or she by board
rules needs to recuse himself from.
final board deliberations on that proposal.
To do otherwise would you create unfair advantage
over other user groups?
I just want to also remind you that the board of fish
and the Board of Game are the entities
that set the allocation harvest limits
for all user-groups.
So, when a member has personal or financial interest,
to me it just will be an unfair practice if he's allowed in deliberation and vote
because of that ability to set allocation issues, the hardest allocations.
Thank you.
Thank You mr. Derek any questions
senator Dunbar
Thank you, madam chair. Thank. You, mister Derek for your testimony. I just wanted to I don't know if you were listening earlier by I asked a question of the
Of the sponsor and I referenced your organization
And so I wanted give you an opportunity to answer the question too, but you know
We're talking about conflict of interest and it's both a financial and a personal interest
Do you feel that?
Dip netting on a particular river or even sport fishing on the river
Creates enough of a conflict that that a board member should be conflicted out of deliberation. So for example if someone
Dip netted you know in the summer they went and they dip netted for personal use on The Chitna
Would they be?
You know
For the Chittna and the copper or however you want to define it
Maybe all of Prince William sound would they B would be confident out if that in your opinion?
If matters are harvesting Alaska resources to feed their families,
they are not feeding their pocketbooks off the resource.
When it comes to financial interest in harvesting a resource,
that is a conflict of interest to me when when they have a final deliberation and bullet in the
or the Board of Deans, just remember they set the allocation, the harvest allocations.
Senator Dunbar.
No, I won't ask. Thank you for your answer.
Mr....
You're welcome.
I'm sorry, Mr Derek. I apologize.
Thank You for answering, mister Derek
Senator Young through the chair to whoever thinks it can answer it possibly the sponsor of the legislation
But how long have we been operating the way that we are right now with these current conflict of interest rules?
Is this 10 years 20 years 40 years the current system that were under?
Thank you before we get to the sponsored. I'm going to head and close public testimony on House bill 33
Mr. Greening
Through the Chair Senator Yant
I do have that information in here and I believe it was in the late 80s that this change was made
But I could be wrong. I will get back to you with that. Information. It has been a while
But, I, do, have it in my mind, or I just have to bum through and check it real quick
There's no rush if you want to get that to me later or whatever but it's probably a close estimate and that'll work for now. Thank you, sir
Thank, you
Mr. Greening do you see this as just a disagreement between commercial and sport fish?
Through the chair, Senator America, I'm not, it's close to that.
I think that to some extent, to, sorry, Chair America.
To some extend,
I, think, that commercial fishermen have disproportionately,
commercial users have disproportionally been disenfranchised by this,
because there are more familial, you know,
relations with commercial fisheries that have a financial interest.
And I will say that to the extent that we've had opposition to this,
we have never had one piece of opposition from a commercial organization
and the few organizations we do have are either personal use or sports fishing.
So I think there is to some extent a back and forth of from the commercial perspective,
from user group perspective.
We're trying to level the playing field for all folks because the current conflict
of interest really disproportionately impacts commercial.
So, I that's definitely part of the answer.
Thank you
Anything further before we set this bill aside, I see no further questions. Thank You, mr. Greening for being here today
We will set a house bill 33 aside for further consideration and we will take a brief at ease
I call the committee back to order at 1.59 p.m.
Next we will have House Bill 26 by Representative Mina,
Statewide Public and Community Transit Plans.
If you and your staff, Claire Warnke,
would like to come forward,
place yourselves on the record
and begin your presentation.
Thank you chair Merrick and members of the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee for the record Genevieve Mina
I represent House District 19 in the Alaska Legislature the Anchorage neighborhoods of Earpert Heights Mountain View and Russian Jack
Thank You again for The Second Hearing of House bow 26 in this committee
This bill was brought forth to me in the spring of 2024,
about two years ago from the Alaska Mobility Coalition,
as well as the Governor's Council on Disabilities
and Special Education in support of multimodal needs
for people with disabilities in our state,
but also to help promote multimodeality
within our transportation network.
Gospel 26 as a recap seeks to modernize the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities duties to reflect the needs of the state by broadening the study
of transportation options across Alaska and improving the department's public
engagement process. The goals of this bill are for the departments powers to be
more intentionally multimodal as well as strengthen its coordination with its
stakeholders.
It helps augment the department's duties and scope to explicitly include public transit.
Second, it expands the responsibilities to study alternative transportation options by
including rural and remote areas.
They currently do have a responsibility to
study alternate transportation modes, but that is only specific to urban Alaska.
And third, the bill seeks to codify the department's public engagement process
in statewide transportation planning, which would include engagement with
metropolitan planning organizations, public and community programs,
We specify that public transit does include.
the Marine Highway System, as well as the Alaska Railroad, and those were amendments included on the House side.
This bill is needed from the advocacy that we've heard from
the Mobility Coalition, from The Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education,
and many different public transportation advocates, where they have been experiencing
gaps in coordination between their communities, their organizations,
and with the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
In particular, there's been experiences with missing out on federal funding that would benefit certain communities.
And ensuring that certain areas which hasn't been benefiting from the opportunity to apply for
federal fund that they have that communication with the department on those programs.
That is my presentation, happy to do a sectional again if required.
I don't see any questions, so we will go ahead and, oh, Senator Dunbar.
I'm sorry, Madam Chair.
So I, I do not think there is a fiscal note, correct, there's no fiscal notes, but there
is the requirement for a, you know, a plan in section 17.
So is it the position of the department that they can accomplish this with their existing
resources, and is this something that there are already planning to do, or can you describe
Thank you through the chair to vice chair Dunbar and our many conversations with the department
They've stated that they are already doing some of the goals of The bill in terms of
Studying alternative modes of transit. They have hosted
Convenings in the past and there's been
positive progress with the Department to help amplify the voices and advocates who want
more multimodality with DOT's transportation planning.
However, that's all contingent on our leadership with administration and also the leadership
at DOT.
So what we want to do is help codify what the department is currently doing.
I also believe that there are some representatives from the
you're doing right now.
I apologize, Madam Chair.
I said, no fiscal note, there is a zero fiscal
note.
There is the fiscal notes, it's a 0 fiscal.
Thank you.
And we do have a couple of folks from the department,
if you would like to hear from them.
That's fine.
OK, thank you, representative Mina.
We will go ahead and move on to your invited testifiers.
First, we have Patrick Reinhart, executive director
of the Governor's Council on Disabilities
and Special Education.
Welcome to the committee, Mr. Dinehart.
Please place yourself on the record and begin your invited testimony.
Thank you, community.
Yes, we can. Thank You.
Good afternoon. My name is Patrick Reinhart, I'm from anchor point Alaska,
and I am the executive director of the governor's council on disability and special ed.
And I wanted to found you members of The Alaska Mobility Coalition,
which was kind of born out of a governor council and the statewide independent living council.
back in 2003.
So anyway, I want to thank Representative Meenak for sponsoring the legislation and thank you, Chair for Subnautica here in the bill today.
We've provided a letter of support for the legislature has been the packet,
I believe, and so I wanted to keep all the points in it.
I do want you to say, you know, why this legislation?
Why public and community transportation in re-enabling statutes of the Department of Transportation?
and public facilities, and why does the governor's council care?
Well, first, I've been a disability advocate for 40 years,
and I could tell you, decade after decade, year after year,
transportation continues to be problems for people with disabilities,
and seniors,
and for other populations that are heavily dependent on public transportation.
Our state has a patchwork of public and community transportation programs,
Like, do you know, have a robust public transportation system and other communities have nothing?
There's no real assistance for planning a growth or connect connectivity between any of our systems.
And we need that. And you need the leadership from the U.S. who can lead that effort.
We're super excited to hear about new systems coming online.
First, it's down here on the Kena Commissioner.
bus service around center conditional area. They use tribal transportation funds to do that,
federal funds. Also, the Indian Nelson Village Corporation increased their
bump small bus travel from three days a week to five days
a weeks, following the Homer, and that's a forgotten
in the queue, Mr. Nelson. These are great additions to public
and community transportation on Facebook to those organizations that
of trying to fill the void that exists,
but there are voids all over the state
and there's conflict between these instances
and how we need to build that.
And we believe there have missed opportunities,
both in terms of state dollars,
being able to leverage federal funding,
to filled those void.
So this is an effort, I think,
to just ask DOT to pay more attention to this
and really develop a solid plan
working with all the different advocates across the states.
identify those gaps, identify the needs, and help plan a system that serves everybody in the future.
Thank you.
Thank You, Mr. Ryan Hart.
I have a brief question for you, the letter you submitted is on official state of Alaska letterhead for the governor.
Can I assume that that means the Governor supports this bill as well?
Well,
The governor's council is a little different
and then a lot of different councils
in that we are a federally supported advocacy board.
So we can take positions regardless of the various
support that you get.
Typically when we do letters of support,
we need to, we put them on our official letterhead.
So it's from the governor council
and you cannot assume that the other office supports it.
Thank you very much.
Questions for Mr. Reinhardt?
Seeing none, thank you for coming to the committee today.
We sure appreciate it.
Our second testifier is Millie Ryan,
board chair of the Alaska Mobility Coalition.
Welcome to committee,
if you could state your name and affiliation
and begin your invited testimony.
Thank you, Chair Merrick and members of
the Committee for hearing this bill.
My name is millie, Ryan.
I live here in Juneau.
among other things I'm president of the Alaska Mobility Coalition,
one of original founders with Patrick.
So the Alaskan Mobility Collision is a non-profit organization.
It's comprised of seniors, people with disabilities,
transportation advocates like myself, although I am a senior as well,
and transportation providers.
Our mission is to empower Alascans to develop transportation systems
that improve their quality of life.
so that they're able to get to work, to doctors appointments,
to go shopping, get the church, volunteer,
and do all the things in the community
that I think those of us who are still able
to drive take for granted.
We wholeheartedly support House Bill 26.
It's something we've advocated for for several years.
Including transit and community transportation and statute
will help promote cost effective, sustainable,
and coordinated rides that meet local, regional,
and state needs.
We're particularly supportive of developing
a comprehensive long-range intermodal transportation plan.
That includes input from a wide variety
of entities and individuals.
We believe it'll make a significant impact
on helping all Alaskans get to the places they need to go.
So on a personal note, I'm a list maker.
I know what happens when something gets on my C-list
or the to-do when time allows.
It seldom happens.
So, we are not asking to be on A1 on the state's responsibilities, but we would like to
be in that A-list, which this statute change would provide.
And statute, that would mean that it would be an important responsibility for the department.
So we look forward to working with the Department on developing that coordinated plan again so
that all Alaskans can get to where they need to go.
So thanks for your time.
Are there any questions?
Thank you, Ms. Ryan.
I see no questions.
We appreciate you coming to the committee and testifying today.
Thank You.
Okay, and so with that, we'll move on to public testimony.
I'm opening public testimony on House Bill 26.
Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify?
Seeing no one we will move on
First up we have Michelle Dural executive director of Hope Community Resources in Anchorage welcome to the committee
Please place yourself on the record and begin your testimony
Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Michelle Giro, and I'm the Executive Director of Hope Community Resources, which
is a nonprofit based in Anchorage, serving Alaskans with Disabilities across the state.
I am also the Board Chair for the Key Coalition of Alaska.
And Iím here to give full support to HB 26, Gratitude to Representative Mina for bringing
it forward.
And recognizing that, you know, the lack of affordable and accessible transportation is
in the top five barriers for people with disabilities to be able to access their community across
Alaska.
And this bill, as you have heard, just puts a coordinated plan on the books and just enables
Further, the accessibility for people with disabilities to access the community.
I think this time of year, we're all very aware of how challenged it would be if you're not driving
to figure out how to get to the bus stop. Is the Bus Stop clear? Is there actually a bus?
Maybe in Anchorage, there is, maybe in June, as there has been in other places,
there's not easy transportation.
and we just are in full support of this bill to lend a shine a light on the need for
Alaska's with disabilities, seniors, those that don't, that may have difficulty with transportation
to have a focus and plan that will enhance accessibility for the future. So thank you.
Seeing none, thank you so much.
Next from Fairbanks is David Leslie.
Welcome to the committee.
Please place yourself on the record
and begin your testimony.
Hi, my name is Davet Leslie and I'm in Fairbank.
I am calling in support of HC26.
I want you to thank Nina for,
I've represented Nina, for bringing us forward
and for advocating it,
for online and
You know, I care for my, my elderly and if you act mother, she has been disabled, but
physically my entire life.
I worry about how she will get to her appointments in the stores, into her activities and daily
living if I wasn't there to give her rides, something also having making sure if she wants
the other places across the state have certain standards and moving to the accessible to everyone.
I want to highlight the importance of how things for people with disabilities
benefit everyone and it will also benefit tourism and the more places tourists can go
even if they're not disabled, the money will be in our economy, more of a help with local businesses.
Some say I dream of seeing that affordable
commuter train between servants in Anchorage
and having places where we can park and ride
or easily get to your stream stations
and just make sure Alaska remains accessible to everyone.
Thank you.
Thank-you very much, Mr. Leslie.
I wanna commend you on the work you do with your mother.
That's quite kind.
I see no one else online.
Is there anyone else on line for testimony?
Seeing none, I will close public testimony on House bill 26
Any questions from the committee
Seeing non-representative. Do you have any closing comments?
Okay, thank you
We will set House Bill 26 aside for further consideration and this concludes our agenda this afternoon
Our next meeting is Tuesday February 3rd 2026 at 1 30 p.m. With that we are adjourned