Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
01/24/2025 01:30 PM 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 | |
| Overview: Governor's Fy 2026 Operating Budget by Office of Management and Budget | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 24, 2025
1:31 p.m.
1:31:29 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Josephson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:31 p.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
Lacey Sanders, Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor; Pam Halloran, Assistant
Commissioner, Department of Health.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Marian Sweet, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Family
and Community Services; Brent Goodrum, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources; Bryan Fisher, Director,
Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management,
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs; Dianna
Thornton, Administrative Services Director, Department of
Public Safety; Dom Pannone, Administrative Services
Director, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities.
SUMMARY
OVERVIEW: GOVERNOR'S FY 2026 OPERATING BUDGET BY OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT and BUDGET
Co-Chair Josephson relayed that the committee would hear a
presentation on the FY 26 governor's operating budget. The
second part of the presentation would be heard the
following Monday afternoon.
^OVERVIEW: GOVERNOR'S FY 2026 OPERATING BUDGET BY OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT and BUDGET
1:32:54 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked Ms. Sanders to join the meeting at
the testifier table.
LACEY SANDERS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, introduced herself and relayed that
administrative services directors were available for
detailed department questions. She provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "State of Alaska Office of Management
and Budget: Overview of the FY2026 Governor's Budget,"
dated January 24, 2025 (copy on file). She relayed that the
governor was statutorily required to release a budget for
the next fiscal year on December 15th every year. The
governor's FY 26 budget was released on December 12, 2024.
The budget consisted of the operating, mental health,
capital, and fast track supplemental bills. The numbers in
the presentation encompassed all four appropriation bills.
Ms. Sanders relayed that the budget reflected the
governor's priorities including reducing crime, improving
educational outcomes, passing a balanced budget, and
bringing outside investment to Alaska. The FY 26 budget was
a reflection of those investments to build a better Alaska
for residents and future generations.
1:35:39 PM
Ms. Sanders moved to an FY 26 fiscal summary on slide 2.
She explained that the document showed the highest level
summary provided by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) including all revenues and expenditures associated
with the budget. The right side of the slide reflected the
FY 25 budget enacted by the legislature the previous
session. The FY 25 portion of the summary also included a
few supplemental items she would address during the
presentation. She noted that supplemental requests were due
th
by statute on the 15 day of session (February 4th of the
current session). She noted there would be additional
supplemental requests from the governor prior to the
th
February 4 deadline. The three supplemental existing items
totaled $75 million including $60 million in agency
operations and $15 million in statewide operations. The
left side of the summary showed the governor's proposed FY
26 budget that would begin on July 1, 2025. Additionally,
the slide showed a comparison of unrestricted general funds
(UGF) in FY 25 and FY 26 on the far right of the summary.
Ms. Sanders explained that in order to simplify the
hundreds of fund codes used for tracking in the budget, OMB
and the Legislative Finance Division (LFD) categorized
funding into four categories including UGF, designated
general funds (DGF), other receipts, and federal receipts.
She detailed that federal, other, and DGF funding sources
were more limited in their use and were mostly designated
for a specific purpose in statute; they were also required
to have a specific revenue source or receipt to be
collected for use on a given purpose. She detailed that
revenues for those sources equaled expenditures in the
fiscal summary. She highlighted that the primary focus was
UGF and it did not have any restrictions.
1:38:22 PM
Representative Galvin observed that slide 2 showed a
deficit of $1.52 billion [for FY 26]. She noted the
governor had submitted a $75 million fast track
supplemental. She understood that the governor would likely
submit an additional supplemental request. She did not know
what the second supplemental would look like in terms of
funding.
Ms. Sanders would address all of the points throughout the
presentation.
Representative Hannan noted there were two supplemental
requests listed for the FY 25 fast track supplemental. She
asked if either of the items were rolled into the base
budget for FY 26.
Ms. Sanders replied that there were three supplementals she
would discuss during the presentation. One of the items was
requested in the base and she would address it in the
presentation.
Co-Chair Schrage asked for verification that the
supplemental requests impacted the projected deficit for
the current fiscal year, FY 25. He asked for verification
that any additional supplemental requests would impact the
FY 25 budget.
Ms. Sanders confirmed that supplementals all impacted the
current year.
Co-Chair Schrage noted that it would continue to drive up
the deficit and put the state in a worse financial position
for FY 26. He asked how many millions of dollars the
additional supplementals would be.
Ms. Sanders answered that she did not have the total at the
current point. For example, the timing of the Medicaid
projection provided to the legislature included a need of
about $14 million in the current year. She relayed that OMB
was going through the process of reviewing all of the
agencies' budgets to determine whether potential needs may
be able to be absorbed and where agencies were in their
projections for the year. There were numerous pieces that
went into gathering the information for a presentation when
the statutory deadline hits.
1:41:43 PM
Co-Chair Schrage asked if the deficit was filled with the
state's savings accounts.
Ms. Sanders answered that she would address slide 2 in
depth, which would address some of the questions.
Currently, the governor's budget proposed a draw from the
Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR). The estimate OMB
utilized was a number from the Division of Finance, which
showed a CBR balance of approximately $2.8 billion.
Currently, the FY 25 supplementals and the FY 26 deficit of
$1.5 billion would be drawn from the CBR.
1:42:55 PM
Ms. Sanders continued to review slide 2. The fiscal summary
was broken down into four categories including revenues,
expenditures, Permanent Fund appropriations, and the
surplus/deficit. She detailed that OMB used the fall 2024
revenue forecast prepared by the Department of Revenue
(DOR), which resulted in $2.6 billion UGF in FY 25 and $2.4
billion UGF in FY 26. The slide reflected the percent of
market value (POMV) transfer from the Earnings Reserve
Account (ERA) of $3.6 billion for FY 25 and $3.8 billion
for FY 26. The total UGF revenue was just under $6.3
billion for FY 25 and $6.2 billion for FY 26.
Ms. Sanders relayed that the fiscal summary on slide 2
showed operating and capital expenditures. She would
provide highlights of significant changes in the budgets on
the upcoming slides. Total expenditures for FY 25 were
about $5.4 billion or about $5.5 billion when including
supplementals. Total expenditures for FY 26 were $5.2
billion for FY 26. The information showed an overall
deficit in the budget of $280 million when comparing year-
to-year. The overall change could be attributed mostly to
numerous one-time items appropriated by the legislature in
2024 that were being removed from the budget. She noted
there were substantial increases in maintaining the budget
that were carried forward into the next year. For example,
there were over $100 million in salary adjustments
associated with the increase in employees' salaries, of
that amount, $62 million was UGF. She explained that the
fiscal summary provided a high level picture of the budget;
there were numerous factors to consider when looking at the
differences from year-to-year. There tended to be very
detailed conversations in House Finance Committee meetings
and in the budget subcommittee process.
1:46:01 PM
Ms. Sanders addressed the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD)
appropriations on slide 2. In FY 25, the legislature
specified the amount of the PFD with a total appropriation
of $914 million. The governor's FY 26 budget included the
full statutory PFD totaling $2.5 billion. She stated that
the governor continued to advocate for a full statutory PFD
to follow the existing law. There were fund transfers
between accounts and the surplus/deficit shown at the
bottom of the slide. She explained that when the budget was
signed into law the previous year, the surplus was
approximately $150 million. Since that time, the fall 2024
revenue forecast showed a decrease of approximately $220
million from the spring 2024 forecast. Additionally, the
three supplemental items further impacted the budget. She
explained that as a result of the decrease in revenue and
the supplementals, there was a proposed deficit of $150
million. The governor's budget proposed funding the deficit
with funds from the CBR.
Representative Galvin thought the committee had heard in
the past day or so that the number may be adjusted based on
a change in oil price. She asked about the dollar figure.
She thought it was a little more positive than it looked.
Ms. Sanders answered that DOR would release an updated
spring forecast in March incorporating the higher price per
barrel that had been occurring. She did not have an updated
number at the moment because it had only been one month
since the fall revenue forecast had been released. She
highlighted that the governor's proposed budget was a
starting point reflecting a point in time in the DOR
Revenue Sources Book. She relayed that as the budget
process progressed including supplementals, amendments, and
the updated spring forecast, there would be a more solid
picture of the budget.
1:49:16 PM
Co-Chair Schrage considered that expenditures were expected
to increase due to some additional supplementals for FY 25.
He asked if there were any other big holes expected on the
expenditure side for FY 26. He asked at what level the
governor's budget funded education.
Ms. Sanders replied that the budget was built based on
current statute. The budget included the statutory Base
Student Allocation (BSA). She elaborated that OMB would
bring forward any known amendments to bring the FY 26 into
a line. There were currently several bargaining units under
negotiation. Until the negotiations were complete she could
not bring amendments to the committee and could not predict
what the outcome of the negotiations would be.
Co-Chair Schrage respected the position of putting forward
what was in statute, but he thought that for the public at
home there had to be some acknowledgement that it was not
realistic. For example, he believed most people were not
expecting the legislature to just pay out what was in
statute for education. He highlighted that it would be a
cut in education funding over the last year. He did not
know that it was the best approach in order to understand
the fiscal reality facing the state. There would be a lot
of work to do.
1:52:04 PM
Ms. Sanders moved to a budget lookback of the state's UGF
budget and revenue from FY 19 through FY 26 in the
governor's proposed budget (slide 3). A chart on the slide
reflected a slight increase in state operations
(represented by the light blue portion of the bars). The
yellow portion of the bars represented statewide
operations. She highlighted that the state had done a good
job at repaying the oil and gas tax credits and bringing
its debt service payments down, resulting in a lower amount
necessary for statewide items. The capital budget had
fluctuated year to year depending on the revenue forecast.
She explained that the approach tended to be ensuring there
was sufficient funding to address the operating budget and
then funding the capital budget for things like matching
funds required to meet federal grant awards. Occasionally
there was sufficient funding to put more towards capital
projects (capital budget funds were reflected in light
green). The dark blue portion of the bar represented the
PFD, which had varied by year. She noted that the FY 26 bar
on the right included a full statutory PFD.
Co-Chair Josephson looked at slide 3 and asked noted that
in the couple of years prior to FY 19 there had been
numerous cuts late in the former Walker administration. He
asked if agency operations were smaller than at that time
in the past or whether they were beyond that number due to
salary increases and fiscal notes.
Ms. Sanders answered that she had looked at not looked at
the state as a whole, but she had looked at the public
safety departments a priority of the governor's -
including Department of Public Safety, Department of
Corrections, and Department of Law. She reported that those
departments were substantially above where the past
reductions had been; they were ahead of where the cuts had
brought the numbers down to. She had not looked closely at
other agencies, but she offered to follow up with the
information.
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that there were numerous
variables with inflation and the like. He thought it would
be interesting to see whether the funding was at Parnell
administration levels or in the first year of the Walker
administration in FY 15. He remarked many legislators had
constituents who wanted cuts to government. He pointed out
that the legislature had made cuts frequently and certainly
a couple of years back. He was curious about the overall
picture.
Representative Galvin was interested in the capital
spending shown in green (slide 3). She believed Ms. Sanders
had stated that sometimes there had been the luxury of
adding more funding. She understood the state had about $9
billion worth of property that it needed to maintain. She
asked what portion of the capital spend had been on
deferred maintenance.
Ms. Sanders did not have a percentage off the top of her
head. She relayed that several years back the legislature
had passed a law putting a portion of the Amerada Hess
settlement funds into the Capital Income Fund. She
explained that the funds were DGF and were not reflected on
slide 3. There had been annual investment ranging from $20
million to $30 million into deferred maintenance. She noted
that the funding had perhaps not gone to the scope of
specific deferred maintenance capital projects she could
tie it to.
1:57:31 PM
Representative Galvin had heard globally that somewhere
between 2 to 4 percent of the value of state property
should be spent to maintain it. Based on the numbers
provided by Ms. Sanders, she observed that investment had
not reached that amount. She wanted to ensure the public
was aware that capital spending was not always about new
buildings, but about protecting existing infrastructure.
Co-Chair Josephson stated his understanding that when
considering deferred maintenance spending the public should
look at the capital budget and the Capital Income Fund
appropriations.
Ms. Sanders agreed.
1:58:35 PM
Ms. Sanders moved to a swoop graph of the total UGF spent
in the governor's FY 26 budget by state agencies, debt
service, and retirement payments (slide 4). She reported
that K-12 foundation formula funding and pupil
transportation under the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) and Medicaid under the Department of
Health (DOH) continued to be the two primary cost drivers
in the state operating budget. Both programs were formula
funded, reflected in orange on the slide. Non-formula
agency costs were shown in blue. The state's K-12
foundation formula and pupil transportation program were
funded in the budget at the statutory BSA level of $5,960
[per student].
Co-Chair Schrage asked how the presentation defined formula
versus non-formula. He asked if formula only pertained to
the BSA and anything federal such as Medicaid/Medicare.
Ms. Sanders responded that during its budget development
process OMB looked at the individual appropriations in the
bill to determine whether there was a formula driving the
amount the state was obligated to pay. There was a
statutory formula for the BSA and pupil transportation
requiring the state to pay a certain amount. Another
example was state retirement payments, where a formula
drove the amount appropriated on an annual basis.
2:01:10 PM
Representative Hannan observed that the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) formula funding was not included on the
graph on slide 4. She asked if it was included on another
slide and what percentage of the operating budget it
comprised.
Ms. Sanders responded that she did not have the information
included in the presentation. It was the administration's
perspective that it was the state's obligation to pay the
statutory PFD. She did not have a number available.
Representative Hannan requested the information. She
pointed out that slide 4 showed that the two formula
programs [K-12 and Medicaid] were 38 percent of the
operating budget. She wanted to see what the proposed PFD
was as a percent of the operating budget.
Ms. Sanders would follow up with the information.
Representative Stapp asked if the PFD appropriation had to
be part of the operating budget or if the legislature chose
to make it part of the operating budget.
Ms. Sanders replied there was a court case determining that
the governor was required to follow the existing statute
and put [the PFD] forward in the operating budget. She
stated that the legislature had the power of appropriation,
and the governor did not. The legislature could make the
choice on how to fund the PFD (e.g., capital budget,
operating budget, or a single appropriation bill). She
highlighted that the legislature also had the power of
enacting legislation to change the statute if it determined
there should be something else in law.
Representative Stapp addressed the Medicaid liability. He
stated his understanding that DOH had concluded or would
shortly conclude a permanent rate increase through the rate
study across the board. He asked if there was an estimate
of what it looked like.
Ms. Sanders answered that the information would be
available on February 19.
2:04:11 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked how Medicaid rate adjustments made
by regulation were paid for.
Ms. Sanders responded that there was a perpetual process of
bringing things back throughout the process of setting
rates. She explained that the administration may need to
come back to the legislature with a supplemental if
something were to change. She elaborated that the budget
reflected what the administration had the authority to
spend. She stated that if it did not have the authority,
the administration would have to ask the legislature for
the additional authority.
2:05:10 PM
Ms. Sanders moved to slide 5 and addressed significant
operating budget highlights. She began with the Department
of Administration (DOA) including $513,600 UGF for three
administrative and legal support positions to assist with
increased workload at the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA).
The second DOA increment was $450,000 for guardian ad litem
positions, which advocate for Children in Need of Aid
(CINA) cases becoming overtime eligible. She relayed that
the positions were reviewed by DOA's Division of Personnel
in a class study and the positions were determined to be
eligible for overtime. Additional authority was needed to
cover the overtime cost associated with the positions.
Ms. Sanders moved to the Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development (DCCED). The first increment was
$50 million UGF to Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority (AIDEA) to provide a backstop for Front End
Engineering work toward a Final Investment Decision on the
Alaska Liquified Natural Gas (AKLNG) Pipeline project over
FY 25 to FY 27. She noted that energy development was a
priority of the governor. The second increment was
$2,487,500 to restore the Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation's (AGDC) operating funding to provide continued
efforts on AKLNG. She explained that the funding had been
provided the previous year as a one-time increment and the
governor's budget included an additional one-time
increment. The budget also included a supplemental
multiyear increment of $10 million UGF for the Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) to implement a
comprehensive marketing plan for wild Alaska seafood from
FY 25 to FY 27. She relayed that the prior session a $10
million appropriation had been put forward by the
legislature and it had been vetoed by the governor pending
a review and ASMI bringing forward a comprehensive
marketing plan over the interim. The work had been done and
the administration was including the $10 million for ASMI
to start the work.
2:08:40 PM
Representative Stapp noted that the $50 million was in the
fast track supplemental bill. He did not see why it needed
to be fast tracked. He asked for an explanation.
Ms. Sanders answered that the increment was intended to be
in the fast track supplemental given the timing AGDC needed
in order to move forward with negotiations. She deferred
detailed questions to the directors of AGDC and AIDEA.
Representative Stapp found it weird to see multiyear
appropriation combined with the word "fast." He stated that
it was not fast.
Representative Johnson asked how the $50 million figure had
been reached. She was curious why it was fast tracked and
whether the funding would sit there or have some associated
goals.
Ms. Sanders replied that AGDC and AIDEA would follow up
with answers.
Co-Chair Josephson asked about the $2,487,500. He asked if
the legislature moved all AGDC funding to one-time funding
in FY 25.
Ms. Sanders responded affirmatively and relayed the funding
in FY 25 was a one-time appropriation.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if it was the first time AGDC had
been exposed to one-time funding for the entire agency.
Ms. Sanders replied that [Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development] administrative services director
Hannah Lager indicated it was possibly one-time funding
previously.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the increment would restore it
as base funding.
Ms. Sanders replied in the negative.
2:11:44 PM
Ms. Sanders moved to increments for the Department of
Corrections (DOC). She relayed that OMB and DOC had been
working closely to address DOC's budget projections and
ensure there were accurate calculations for the
department's budget proposals. The first item was an
additional $3,900,000 for the Alaska Public Employees
Association supervisory union collective bargaining
agreement. There was a previous year budgetary structure
change that moved all of the overtime for DOC into its own
allocation. Due to the change, OMB was unable to calculate
personal services on a PCN [position control number] by PCN
basis that it prepared salary adjustments for. She
explained the situation resulted in the under projection of
the costs for the supervisory positions by $3.9 million.
She relayed that OMB was moving all of the overtime back to
the institutions in the budget where the positions were
actually budgeted for to ensure there were monetary
calculations done correctly moving forward.
Representative Stapp asked how it had not been possible to
calculate payroll just because a line item was broken out
in a different area on a spreadsheet.
Ms. Sanders answered that the monetary terms for a
bargaining unit agreement were calculated by OMB on a PCN
by PCN basis. All of the overtime costs for the positions
were moved to a different location; therefore, when the
calculation was run, it missed the overtime. She explained
that a better calculation was obtained by moving each PCN
to show the corresponding amount of overtime per PCN.
Representative Stapp stated his understanding that the
money for overtime was split out in order for the
legislature to monitor what had been "atrocious and
excessive" overtime hours in DOC. He asked for verification
that the software program had been run and it had assumed
there was no overtime associated with a single position. He
asked if it was a supplemental request was for overtime
hours incurred in FY 25.
Ms. Sanders responded that OMB was working through every
aspect of the department's budget to ensure it was
calculating things correctly in order to come back to the
committee with an accurate number. She noted that the
legislature had included intent language in the FY 25
budget; therefore, OMB was reporting payroll costs
(including regular pay and overtime) by institution on a
monthly basis.
2:15:34 PM
Representative Galvin was very aware of how hard
correctional officers were working and she appreciated how
much supervisory officers were having to make up when there
was short staffing. She thought it was important for the
legislature to consider putting more money in the lower "on
the ground level" workers to reduce the amount of overtime
and issues around recruitment and retention. She was a bit
put off by the size of the funding increment going into UGF
for supervisory positions when she was also concerned about
the broader picture of supporting [correctional] officers.
She wanted to see a deeper dive. She recognized that slide
5 was showing budget highlights and she hoped there was
information not reflected on the slide. She stressed that
the increment [of $3.9 million UGF] was a lot of money.
Ms. Sanders confirmed that the slide only showed a small
number of highlighted items within each department's
budget. She pointed out that the FY 26 included over $100
million in salary adjustments and $61 million of the total
was associated with UGF. She relayed that there were
bargaining unit agreement increases for employees' salaries
to continue to increase year-to-year.
Representative Hannan shared that she would chair the
subcommittee for DOC. She stated her understanding that the
$3.9 million was not the overtime pay for corrections
officers, which was accounted for in the budget actions.
She asked for verification that the increment reflected the
standby pay for supervisory, which was related to overtime
but not the same thing.
Ms. Sanders agreed.
Representative Hannan presumed the peer support and
wellness program [shown under DOC highlights on slide 5]
was for DOC employees. She asked if the program would grow
in the second year or remain the same size.
Ms. Sanders relayed that the increment was $500,000 UGF to
establish a peer support and wellness program. She
confirmed that the program was for [DOC] employees. She
explained that it was the start of the program, and she did
not have an answer to the second part of Representative
Hannan's question.
Representative Hannan was happy to wait to discuss the
topic in subcommittee.
Co-Chair Josephson recalled that about one year ago DOC
needed a substantial infusion of supplemental dollars in
the tens of millions of dollars range for population
management. He thought the current increment looked fairly
modest comparatively.
Ms. Sanders confirmed that there had been substantial
supplementals that were talked about the previous session.
She reported that OMB had been working closely with DOC;
there were other increases as well. She explained that OMB
had been working with DOC to ensure it was tracking in
alignment with the budget to ensure the budget presented to
the committee reflected what expenditures would be.
2:20:42 PM
Representative Bynum asked if there was evaluation being
done to see if there would be a long-term cost savings
effect by including peer support and wellness and the
expansion of vocational support programs. He was happy to
see the expansion of vocational programs listed.
Ms. Sanders responded in the negative, but she thought it
was a very good point. She highlighted the last bullet on
slide 5 showing an increment of $850,000 to expand
vocational programming and training opportunities for 2,500
inmates. She explained that throughout the governor's
budget there were several vocational education items for
the Department of Labor and Workforce Development and
Department of Education and Early Development. She relayed
that the governor was excited and wanted to see
opportunities for vocational education throughout the state
in order to increase the state's workforce and fill the
needs where there may be holes currently. The $850,000 was
meant for coding, software development, electrical,
plumbing, and carpentry classes. She relayed that OMB did
not have a report or tracking, but it was something the
administration could consider in order to see outcomes
downstream.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for verification that there had
been a veto of $700,000 for DOC vocational training in the
FY 25 budget.
Ms. Sanders relayed that there was a vetoed DOC item, but
it was something separate. She relayed that the increment
for vocational training shown on slide 5 was the result of
a workforce development recommendation from a group of
agencies over the past interim. She stated there may have
been a veto that had some additions for workforce
development, but she would have to look at the details.
2:23:56 PM
Ms. Sanders continued to review significant operating
budget highlights on slide 6. She began with DEED and
highlighted an increment of $1.5 million for continued
teacher recruitment, retention, certification, and
development funding. She detailed there was a teacher
recruitment and retention (TRR) working group that prepared
the TRR action plan for implementing strategic
recommendations targeted for short and long-term
improvements specifically related to teachers. The
increment had been before the legislature in prior years
and specifically addressed priority areas focusing on
recruitment efforts and opportunities, restructuring
retirement options, streamlining certification, and
strengthening workforce conditions. The department had been
working with federal counterparts to implement an
apprenticeship program for teachers. The funding would help
continue the effort.
Ms. Sanders highlighted an increment of $1.25 million for
career and technical education initiatives. The increment
was intended to establish the implementation of a career
pathway for students; the increment would also support
school districts with grants for them to develop programs
in their schools. The funds would cover areas such as
internships, pre-apprenticeships, and other hands on work-
based learning opportunities. The funding also supported
career and technical student organizations; there were six
chapters actively working throughout the state. There was
an increment of $300,000 to establish curriculum and
student pathways, which involved DEED building out a
curriculum for students to be used by any school district.
Representative Johnson highlighted there had been a $1.5
million increment [for continued teacher recruitment,
retention, certification, and apprenticeship development]
in FY 24 and FY 25 as well. She surmised it was likely not
a one-time increment. She was interested in the results
from the FY 24 and FY 25 increments and what the
administration expected for FY 26.
2:26:55 PM
Ms. Sanders agreed that the items had been before the
committee in prior years. She explained that each year they
were put forward and were changed to a one-time item;
therefore, the administration kept bringing them back. She
offered to follow up with DEED to ensure they provided the
information on outcomes to the committee.
Ms. Sanders continued on slide 6 and addressed a $4,368,700
UGF increment to the Department of Family and Community
Services to ensure continued operations of the Alaska
Psychiatric Institute (API). She detailed that the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reduced the
disproportionate share hospital (DSH) allocations
nationally. When the public health emergency declaration
expired, the Medicaid redeterminations resulted in a
decrease of the Medicaid eligible patients at the hospital.
The change required an increase in UGF to ensure there was
not a structural deficit at API.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the need for increased funding
was COVID-19 related.
Ms. Sanders replied that because the public health
declaration had ended there had been a redetermination
resulting in a need for additional general funds.
Representative Hannan asked what API's current UGF funding
was.
Ms. Sanders deferred the question to the department.
MARIAN SWEET, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY
AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (via teleconference), answered that
the total UGF funding for API in FY 25 was $25.54 million.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if any of the $4.3 million
[proposed in the FY 26 budget] related to the competency
and commitment bill. Alternatively, he asked if the
entirety was all due to a reduction in the share of the DSH
subsidy.
Ms. Sanders believed the increment was only due to the
redetermination. She deferred the question to Ms. Sweet.
Ms. Sweet responded that there were significant reductions
in the department's revenue collections from Medicaid
claims as well as the reduction in the DSH funding.
Additionally, the department was receiving less collections
from private insurance companies. The department was
looking at increasing revenues and doing additional
rebillings, but it had seen much success. There had also
been some slight increases in operational costs due to
inflation over the past couple of years; operation of the
API facility was costing more. The significant reduction in
revenue collections was requiring the department to request
the additional funding authority.
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that there were supposed to be
more people who were referred for commitment consideration
when they were deemed incompetent to stand trial. He noted
the subject could be discussed during the subcommittee
process.
2:31:14 PM
Ms. Sanders reviewed the last two budget items on slide 6
pertaining to the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The
first increment was $716,500 UGF to restore fisheries
survey and assessment projects located throughout the
state. She explained that there had been a reduction of
$716,000 the prior year during the budget process to
commercial fisheries. The proposed request brought the item
back before the legislature. Examples of the projects
included Judd Lake weir, herring assessments, and the
Prince William Sound trawl survey. The budget included
$450,000 UGF base funding for maintenance of vessels,
aircraft maintenance, repair, and upgrades. She detailed
that DFG had six research vessels and five aircrafts used
to transport employees for monitoring efforts, stock
assessment programs, and various research projects. The
costs were continuing to increase and the increment would
enable the continuation of maintenance needs into future
years.
Co-Chair Schrage asked why there were maintenance upgrades
in the operating budget as opposed to the capital budget.
He asked how OMB decided to put a request in the operating
or capital budget.
Ms. Sanders replied that OMB looked at whether a need was
ongoing. The item was included in the operating budget
because there was an ongoing operational need to keep
equipment, vessels, and aircrafts sustained. She detailed
that OMB occasionally put a specific item in the capital
budget because of the scope. For example, maintenance for
Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) vessels was funded in
the capital budget because of the extensive scope. She
elaborated that it varied from year to year and OMB was
trying to get more consistent determining where increments
should go based on whether there was an ongoing operational
need versus a one-time need.
2:34:24 PM
Ms. Sanders addressed operating budget highlights on slide
7 beginning with the DOH. She explained that the passage of
SB 189 in 2024 increased the eligibility standards for
childcare assistance to 105 percent of the state median
income. The department estimated there were approximately
18,000 additional children meeting the eligibility
requirements, resulting in approximately 1,200 to 1,300
more usage under the Childcare Assistance Program [the
increment was $6,092.2 million including $5,867.1 million
UGF and $225,100 in federal funds]. The budget also
included full statutory funding for the Senior Benefit
Payment Program. She detailed that SB 170 had been rolled
into SB 147 and had passed in 2024. The proposed increment
ensured there was full funding based on that statutory
program. Additionally, there was a $1.5 million increase
split between $750,000 UGF and $75,000 in mental health
trust authority authorized receipts to establish the mental
health trust crisis call center to support individuals
across the state with mental health needs.
Ms. Sanders moved to the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development (DLWD) and reviewed an increment of $182,300
UGF to increase available Alaska Vocational Technical
Center (AVTEC) class seats from 15 to 30 students in the
Industrial Electrical Program in support of an initiative
to expand Alaska's electrical and plumbing workforce. She
addressed increments for the Department of Law (DOL)
including $1,194,100 UGF for five new positions to provide
support to reduce caseloads to a manageable level as
suggested by the American Bar Association. Additionally,
there was a request of $500,000 UGF to support continued
statehood defense efforts across multiple agencies. She
explained that DOL would partner with other state agencies
to plan, review, and continue efforts supporting Alaska's
statehood sovereignty.
2:37:56 PM
Co-Chair Josephson noted that he had spoken with officials
with DOL. He remarked that there would still be litigation
brought by groups like the Natural Resources Defense
Council. He stressed that unless something was wildly
different than he thought it would be, there would be
substantially less litigation from the from the federal
government. He noted it was something the committee would
weigh when it looked at the final budget.
Representative Galvin asked about the childcare assistance
increment. She understood that historically a very small
number of families took advantage of the opportunity for
childcare assistance. She was hopeful that the increase
more aligned with the cost of care would result in an
increase in families using the assistance. She asked if the
number was based on the current usage of Alaskan families
or on potential growth.
Ms. Sanders deferred the question to DOH.
PAM HALLORAN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
replied that there was an assumption that about 18,000
additional children aged 12 and under would meet the
eligibility criteria.
Representative Galvin asked how the cost increment had been
derived. She noted that only 5 percent of those eligible
currently used the assistance.
Ms. Sanders replied that the department would follow up
with an answer.
2:41:22 PM
Ms. Sanders moved to budget highlights for the Department
of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) on slide 8. She
highlighted an increment of $175,000 to expand operations
of the Alaska State Defense Force, Naval Militia, and Civil
Air Patrol. The department was increasingly responding to
disasters; the funding would allow for a coordinated
oversight of the entities by DMVA. The second item was the
last fast track supplemental item at $15 million for
deposit into the Disaster Relief Fund. The fund's current
$51,000 balance was the lowest it had been. She explained
that due to the balance in the fund, OMB had been working
with DMVA to ensure there was available funding and it had
set aside about $6 million from the capital appropriation
within the Office of the Governor to address any current
disasters. The request was to deposit $15 million into the
fund; a portion of the amount would go towards returning
the original capital appropriation to its prior balance.
Additionally, it would provide the department with money to
get through the end of FY 25. The FY 26 budget included a
request of $13 million UGF for deposit into the fund. She
added that DMVA estimated there was about one disaster per
month, which was about $1 million per month.
2:44:04 PM
Representative Stapp stated he was under the impression
that the Disaster Relief Fund was under the Office of the
Governor and administered by DOR. He asked if his
understanding was accurate.
Ms. Sanders answered that the Disaster Relief Fund was a
fund in the state's accounting system that was managed by
DMVA. She relayed that OMB worked closely with the Division
of Finance to monitor the fund and ensure there was a
sustainable balance.
Representative Stapp asked if the fund was typically
capitalized with funds from the waterfall through lapses.
Ms. Sanders answered, "No." She clarified that the fund was
capitalized annually through the budget with a combination
of UGF and federal appropriations.
Representative Hannan asked how much the legislature had
appropriated the previous year to the Disaster Relief Fund
and how much had been vetoed.
Ms. Sanders responded that she did not have the precise
number on hand. She relayed that there had been a veto in
the FY 25 budget, which was based on an estimate the
administration felt comfortable with. She stated that the
department could provide a more detailed response. She
noted that disasters were hard to predict and unfortunately
there had been more disasters than anticipated. The
supplemental request would put money into the fund to
ensure the state could respond immediately to disasters.
2:46:16 PM
Representative Hannan considered the proposed request of
$15 million for the Disaster Relief Fund via the
supplemental to backfill money borrowed against another
fund and $13 million in the base for FY 26. She remarked on
the estimated $1 million per month cost for disasters and
highlighted that the state had seen a streak of bad years
where disasters were much more expensive. She was concerned
the amounts in the budget were not sufficient to pay for
the average year of disasters. She stated that funding had
been vetoed. She was looking for guidance from DMVA on the
right number in order to avoid having to provide
supplemental funding annually.
Ms. Sanders replied that the legislature deposited $20.5
million to the fund the previous year and the veto was $7.5
million. She was happy to have the conversations with DMVA
on what a comfortable amount was.
2:48:05 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked if OMB could describe in writing
how delays in the funding would be reflected. He was
sympathetic to the request because it was called disaster
relief and it sounded like a fast track item. He asked what
the impact would be if the funding was not received until
th
the governor signed the bill on June 15. Additionally, if
the dollars were going to be replenished to deferred
maintenance, he wondered if it was a capital item where
there was no rush and the funding could go into FY 26, FY
27, and FY 28. Alternatively, he asked if the catch up had
to occur in the two-week window after an operating budget
was signed.
Ms. Sanders answered that the legislature appropriated
deferred maintenance funding annually and the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) facilitated a
process with all state agencies to rank the capital
projects. Subsequently, OMB worked through the list in
order of the ranking to allocate the funding. When it had
been identified there would be an issue with the balance of
the Disaster Relief Fund, OMB had reviewed capital
appropriations. She elaborated that OMB had determined it
could temporarily use deferred maintenance funding for the
purpose with the understanding it was important to put the
money back in order for state agencies to continue to move
forward with deferred maintenance projects in order to
avoid larger problems. Timing wise, the legislature had the
ability to pass a fast track supplemental quickly and get
it to the governor for signature. She hoped the funding for
the Disaster Relief Fund could be addressed sooner than
June.
2:51:06 PM
Representative Bynum was supportive of the expanded
operations for Civil Air Patrol included in the budget. He
believed it was good for communities. He did not see
anything with regard to expansion of veterans' services,
specifically for veteran services officers. He asked if the
administration had considered including the funding. He
noted there was a tremendous need for direct services for
veterans in the state. He believed there was not
necessarily a high focus on the topic.
Ms. Sanders replied that the FY 26 budget did not include
an expansion for veterans' officers. She noted there had
been significant conversation during the 2024 legislative
session about additions of the positions. She would follow
up with the information.
2:52:45 PM
Ms. Sanders highlighted two operating budget items for the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on slide 8. The
budget included $858,000 UGF and three new positions for
forestry management and development for increased access to
land and resources. She detailed that it was a top priority
for the department to expand access to state forests and
timber resources in order to increase timber sales to drive
economic development. The request would go towards
providing stable funding sources for equipment operators,
mapping services, and foresters. The budget also included
$648,400 UGF for natural disaster emergency response and
prevention. The primary responder was DMVA; however, with
the increasing number of disasters across the state, other
agencies were called upon for their expertise. The
increment would provide the Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys the ability to respond to the state
emergency operation center's request for assistance and
have a team specifically dedicated to emergency response
and the prevention of natural disasters. The team would
conduct geological hazard assessments promptly and
proactively to manage land and mitigate geological risks in
the state.
2:54:51 PM
Representative Galvin asked for more clarity on the
$858,000 for three positions. She thought perhaps there the
cost involved housing, cars, or something else. She thought
the positions seemed to be very high paying.
Ms. Sanders deferred to DNR for detail.
BRENT GOODRUM, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES (via teleconference), answered there were two
parts to the increment. One was to help secure stable
funding for 12 positions including 4 foresters, 5 GIS
analysts, and 3 equipment operators. He detailed that much
of the work they did was related to fire risk reduction and
fuel breaks. Up until the current point the work had been
funded through expiring CIPs and federal funds. He
explained it was important to secure more stable funding to
help reduce fire risk and increase access to state timber
resources. The funding would also pay for a new forester
position in Haines, an engineer to help with road work to
create the access, as well as an accountant technician to
help make sure the work was done effectively.
Co-Chair Josephson did not see anything about the executive
order (EO) on the agricultural department. He asked if it
was more appropriate for a hearing on the EO. He asked
about the cost of standing up a new department.
Ms. Sanders answered that OMB had been working closely with
DNR on the topic. The governor's office would submit
amendments in the governor's amended budget, which would
show the total cost and positions. She noted that OMB was
also working on some statements of cost so the committee
could see what it looked like prior to the release of the
amended budget.
2:57:42 PM
Co-Chair Josephson relayed that a number of legislators had
a meeting a couple of years ago with a former professor Mr.
Steiner from the University of Alaska Fairbanks who is an
author and expert on climate science. He detailed that Mr.
Steiner had talked about the need for a resiliency fund. He
highlighted Haines, Wrangell, and Sitka and landslides that
he believed were clearly climate related. He cited Typhoon
Merbok [a storm that hit western Alaska in September 2022]
as another example of a climate related disaster. He asked
if the administration had thought about a broader
discussion about the impact of climate change on
appropriations in the future.
Ms. Sanders replied that she had not participated in any of
those discussions. She deferred the question to DMVA.
BRYAN FISHER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS
AFFAIRS (via teleconference), replied that he had worked
for the department for 30 years and there had been constant
discussions on the impact of climate change and what it
meant. He relayed that the number of disasters declared
around the state had become more frequent including coastal
sea storms, wildfire in the Interior and Artic regions of
the state, and landslides in Southeast. He stated that the
frequency and intensity of disasters in Alaska and
nationwide had trended to be increasing. He stated that the
division's response to disasters was about the effects, not
the cause of climate change. There were a pretty
significant number of disasters declared in Alaska
occurring about once per month on average for the past 1.5
or 2 years.
Co-Chair Josephson encouraged the department to think about
the impact of the climate.
Ms. Sanders moved to the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
increments on slide 8. The governor continued to advocate
for investment in public safety across the state. The
budget included $1,215,200 UGF to provide five additional
Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) positions, increasing
the program from 85 to 90 positions. She stated that DPS
had done a great job working to fill the positions and
reduce the number of vacant VPSO positions. The increment
would continue to rebuild the program at a sustainable
rate. Additionally, the budget included $3,750,1000 UGF and
nine new positions for the Alaska State Troopers (AST). She
detailed that the increment was broken into two parts.
First, there was $2.4 million to reestablish the Talkeetna
Post, which was closed in 2016. The post would ensure there
was timely response and coverage of Willow, Talkeetna, and
Trapper Creek. The increment was intended to improve
response times, traffic enforcement efforts, and provide
full-time law enforcement services to residents in the
upper Susitna Valley. The post would require five new
positions including one sergeant, three troopers, and a
criminal justice technician. Additionally, there was a
request for a wildlife trooper at the post. The second
portion of the increment was $1.3 million to add three
troopers for child crime investigations in Western Alaska.
She relayed that three positions were added in the FY 25
budget to serve Bethel and surrounding villages. She
detailed that the volume of sexual assault cases surpassed
existing trooper investigative capacity. The addition of
non-permanent investigators dedicated to the sexual assault
of minor cases in the Kotzebue, Nome, and surrounding areas
would allow the department to bring on investigators to
manage the case volume in the region.
3:02:47 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked how many VPSO positions
had been added the previous year and how many had been
filled.
Ms. Sanders deferred the question to the department.
DIANNA THORNTON, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), answered
that 10 VPSO positions had been added in FY 25. The 85
positions funded for FY 25 had been filled.
Representative Johnson stated that investigator positions
had been funded in FY 25. She asked if the positions had
been filled.
Ms. Sanders believed the positions were filled, but she
deferred to Ms. Thornton.
Representative Johnson repeated her question.
Ms. Thornton answered that the three investigator positions
were for Bethel and were filled. The three proposed
positions in the FY 26 budget were for Kotzebue.
Representative Hannan asked how many Alaska State Trooper
positions were unfilled. She remarked there had been a
fairly high vacancy rate in 2024.
Ms. Thornton did not have the number on hand and would
follow up.
3:05:54 PM
Representative Hannan asked about the trooper policy when a
person was hired for a specific area. She asked if an
individual who took a position in Bethel could transfer
internally to the Trapper Creek post if it was created. She
highlighted that there had been focus on filling rural
positions, which had been difficult to fill. She was
concerned about the idea of losing those people hired in
rural positions. She wondered whether a person who had
taken a specified position such as a child crime
investigator in Bethel could transfer into the regular
ranks at a trooper post on the road system when it became
available.
Ms. Thornton replied that there was a policy in place, but
she did not have the information on hand. She would provide
the answer in writing.
Co-Chair Schrage recalled there had been difficulty in past
years where positions had been created and the state had
been unable to fill them, or the position was filled but
another position within the same allocation went unfilled.
He asked for an aggregate breakdown of the number of
positions, how many were filled, and how it had changed
over the past several years. He asked what other posts
(apart from Talkeetna) had been closed in the past decade.
Ms. Sanders replied that DPS would follow up.
Co-Chair Schrage asked why the Talkeetna post had been
selected for reinstatement over the other posts that had
been closed.
Ms. Sanders agreed to follow up with the information.
3:08:48 PM
Ms. Sanders addressed the DOT budget highlights on slide 9.
The budget included a $250,000 UGF increment to provide
employees with specialized training to respond to accidents
along the Dalton Highway. She explained that due to
increased hauling activity on the Dalton Highway,
particularly with the transport of liquified natural gas
(LNG), employees needed specialized training to respond
effectively to highway accidents in the remote area. The
increment would ensure employees had training and equipment
and skills to manage hazardous materials or perform
accident response safely. The budget also included $692,500
UGF for maintenance camp contracting. She detailed that the
Dalton Highway had experienced personnel shortages;
therefore, DPS was proposing contracting out for personnel
including equipment operators, mechanics, and other needs.
The budget included $1 million UGF for the northern region
roadside hardware repairs. She expounded that there was
often damage done to guardrails, signs, and other
installations along the roadway that protect drivers. The
department often sought compensation from the person
responsible for the damage through insurance and the funds
were frequently insufficient or the damaging party was
unknown. The increment would enable the department to start
addressing repair needs. The budget included $500,000 UGF
for right-of-way clearing of vacated homeless encampments.
There was an increased number of vacated homeless
encampments on state right of ways, which left debris,
hazardous materials, environmental damage, and were often a
public safety hazard.
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that there had been a mass
denuding of forest the past fall in Representative Galvin's
district. He explained that the location was in the right
of way and had homeless encampments. He believed there had
been some dispute or consternation about how it had been
done. He stated it was vast acreage that may have exceeded
the bounds of the encampment. He would like details from
DOT on how the decision had been made. He had been told
that although DOT had the right to do it, it was not the
way the Municipality of Anchorage would have done it. He
was curious to know the policy.
Ms. Sanders noted that the ASD director was available
online. She would have the department follow up in writing.
3:13:33 PM
Representative Hannan asked about the Northern region
roadside hardware repairs. She wondered what funding the
department currently had for the repair and why there was
only funding for the Northern region. She suspected that
all of the state's highways had the same issue. She
wondered if there was some major incident resulting in the
funding request.
Ms. Sanders deferred the question to DOT.
DOM PANNONE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (via
teleconference), replied that the department was split into
three regions by statute. He relayed that the Northern
region was significantly larger than the Southcoast and
Southcentral regions. He explained that the request was in
response to watching trends. He detailed that damaged
guardrail posed a safety risk and the request was about
safety. He elaborated that the Northern region was seeing a
trend up and an increase in the cost of the materials. The
region was trying to mitigate the impacts to its operating
budget and still be able to keep the guardrails safe for
the traveling public. He explained that the situation was
not as big an issue in the other two regions.
Representative Hannan asked what the state currently spent
for the item in the Northern region. She asked if it was a
fraction of what was spent or reflected a doubling of the
budget.
Mr. Pannone replied that the department spent roughly $2.5
million annually in the Northern region for guardrails. He
would be happy to follow up with information showing the
history for the couple of years.
3:17:10 PM
Co-Chair Schrage returned to Co-Chair Josephson's question
about right of way clearing. He stated that some of right
of way clearing had been done over the past year and he
assumed it was small enough in scale that it was absorbed
into the budget and the existing level of appropriated
funding. He asked if there was a reason the same could not
be done moving forward. He asked if the department was
anticipating a larger scale of right of way clearing. Based
on his experience driving down the new Seward Highway he
found the clearing to be extensive. He remarked that there
may be some frustration with how it was done. Generally, he
believed it was likely a good public safety step. He asked
what the state would get for $500,000 and if DOT was
expecting that much additional right of way clearing into
the next year.
Mr. Pannone responded that the department spent roughly
$300,000 on the [right of way clearing] activity in the
Anchorage area and approximately $150,000 in the Fairbanks
area. The department was recognizing the need to clean the
areas up as more areas were identified. The request was to
continue with the effort to ensure the areas were safe. He
elaborated that DOT managed the right of ways as part of a
federal funding requirement. The budget request was to
continue the work without impacting other maintenance and
operation areas.
Representative Allard asked if the department was also
looking at preventing the encampments from happening. She
asked what DOT was doing to prevent the situations from
getting to the point where it cost so much.
Ms. Sanders deferred the question to Mr. Pannone.
3:19:34 PM
Mr. Pannone answered that the department looked at clearing
trees, adding sightlines, and increasing safety in
encampments. The department also looked at controlled
access to the facilities. He explained that a lot of the
concerns stemmed from pedestrians and traffic and keeping
the public safe. When the department became aware of
encampments and locations, clearing the trees was one way
to increase safety. Additionally, changing the way highways
were designed could also help mitigate the situation. He
added that he was not the policymaker on maintenance and
operations or highway design. He deferred detailed
questions on the subject to a subcommittee meeting.
Representative Stapp asked if the department had the
ability to send a bill to the municipality for allowing the
situation to continue to happen.
Mr. Pannone replied that the department was requesting the
funds for locations that were the state's responsibility.
Sending a bill would be a policy call, which was outside
his expertise.
3:22:12 PM
Representative Allard stated that while something may be on
a state road, the Anchorage Police Department still had
jurisdiction over the area. She suggested a municipality
should reimburse the state. She believed a single mom in
Fairbanks should not have to foot the bill for the
Municipality of Anchorage not doing its due diligence.
Mr. Pannone answered that they were policy calls and he
deferred to the right of way section of DOT that had a full
understanding of the departments obligations for the
federal highway funds it received. He deferred the policy
to policymakers.
3:23:24 PM
Co-Chair Josephson relayed that during the latest campaign
season many of the legislators had spoken with constituents
about homelessness. He asked Ms. Sanders to resume her
review of slide 9.
Ms. Sanders highlighted a $20 million request ($3.9 million
UGF and $16.9 million in university receipts) for the
University of Alaska for fixed operating cost increases
such as cyber security and information technology,
facilities maintenance, and utilities. She noted there were
substantial items such as salary adjustments that were also
included for the University. She relayed that a $100
million increment she had discussed earlier also included
almost $20 million for the University's salary adjustments
associated with its bargained contracts. The last item on
the slide was a statewide item request of $2.5 billion UGF
to provide a full statutory PFD. She stated it was the
governor's priority to continue to put forward a statutory
PFD.
Representative Bynum referenced investments made in the
University of Alaska and other programs. He stated that one
of the ongoing themes he would discuss was workforce
development including creating pipelines for students to
help with trades that were needed in Alaska. He hoped there
were specific budget items that would highlight the needs.
Ms. Sanders replied that the University would be prepared
to address the item with the committee.
Co-Chair Josephson thanked Ms. Sanders and her colleagues.
The presentation would continue during the meeting the
following Monday.
ADJOURNMENT
3:26:50 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:26 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01.24.25 OMB House Finance FY2026 Budget Overview v2.pdf |
HFIN 1/24/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 HB 55 |