Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
01/26/2026 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 | |
| Presentation: Fy 26 Vetoes by the 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
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 26, 2026
1:33 p.m.
1:33:51 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Josephson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:33 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 Elexie Moore
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Nellie Unangiq Jimmie
ALSO PRESENT
Lacey Sanders, Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor; Dom Pannone, Administrative
Services Director, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities; Ryan Anderson, Commissioner, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Marie Marx, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal
Services.
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: FY 26 VETOES BY THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
Co-Chair Josephson reviewed the meeting agenda.
^PRESENTATION: FY 26 VETOES BY THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
LACEY SANDERS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, provided opening remarks related to
the governor's vetoes in the FY 26 budget. She detailed
that the budget passed by the legislature at the end of the
previous session was built on a much higher dollar value
based on the [Department of Revenue] spring revenue
forecast released in March that included an [oil price] of
$68.00 per barrel. She elaborated that in June, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) had worked closely with the
Department of Revenue (DOR) in monitoring the significant
decline and volatility in the price of oil. By the time the
governor was addressing the bills through the veto review
process and signing them into law, DOR provided an updated
oil price projection of $64 per barrel, reflecting a
decrease of almost $4.00 per barrel. The DOR website
included a letter from the former commissioner outlining
the status at the time and providing several scenarios such
as a $5 increase and $5 decrease to give people a general
idea where the remainder of the year would be. She relayed
that the governor had taken the situation seriously and
wanted to ensure the state was not in a position of
substantial deficits; therefore, he had proposed vetoes
totaling almost $122 million in the operating and capital
budgets.
Ms. Sanders referenced three spreadsheets in members'
packets (copy on file) that had been released the previous
June when the [budget] was signed into law. The first was
the OMB HB 53 veto summary spreadsheet, a one-page summary
encompassing the vetoes associated with the operating
budget. She was available for questions on the document.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if members had questions about the
operating budget vetoes. He asked for verification that the
operating budget vetoes totaled $57.5 million in
unrestricted general funds (UGF).
Ms. Sanders responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Josephson asked how much was coming back to the
legislature as supplemental requests.
1:39:39 PM
Ms. Sanders highlighted two supplemental items on the
spreadsheet that were included in governor's budget
released on December 11. The first was the capitalization
of the Disaster Relief Fund on row 24. The veto was about
$10.3 million and retained $13 million. She detailed that
OMB worked with the Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs (DMVA) during the review and disasters had been
costing the state approximately $1 million per month. The
governor's budget included a $40 million request. She
highlighted that Typhoon Halong was a substantial cost to
the state. The second pertained to a veto of approximately
$26 million for fire suppression shown on line 27. The veto
retained $47.5 million in the budget for fire response. The
governor's budget included two notifications to the
legislature to address fire totaling $55 million. She
explained that it was not the full number and the
administration would be talking to the legislature about
future requests to address the remainder of costs
associated with the Fire Suppression Fund. Similarly with
the Disaster Relief Fund, the costs were not all incurred
in one year. Some of the costs associated with the Fire
Suppression Fund were related to shoring up prior year
processes.
1:42:26 PM
Representative Galvin observed that the spreadsheet
included several vetoes in education. She recalled that the
governor had requested some of the items and the
legislature had been careful not to add funding above the
requests. She referenced line 1 labeled "highest priority
teacher recruitment: mentorship, apprenticeship?" She had
heard repeatedly that the item was a top priority.
Additionally, a bill was passed by the 33rd legislature to
give teacher incentive payments for national board
certification and it was zeroed out by the governor. She
highlighted that the statute had passed, but it had never
been funded. She was concerned about the $500,000 cut that
she noted would not make or break the bank. She asked for
an explanation.
Ms. Sanders responded that OMB took the veto review process
very seriously. The items had been zeroed out due to
declining revenue.
Representative Galvin had heard that with other vetoes ways
had been found to ensure services were kept whole one way
or another. She wondered if the same thought had been
applied to the two specific aforementioned vetoes. She
asked if positions had been moved to ensure there was money
in order to follow the statute that was passed.
Ms. Sanders replied not to her knowledge.
Representative Hannan referred to the Disaster Relief Fund
including the $40 million supplemental request and
remaining fund balance of $13 million after the veto. She
asked if she could presume the cost for disasters for the
fiscal year was $53 million.
Ms. Sanders answered that the funds were not for the
specific year. She explained that disasters covered
multiple years and OMB worked closely with DMVA. She
confirmed that $53 million was the total appropriation
amount.
Representative Hannan asked what the governor's FY 27
budget requested for the Disaster Relief Fund.
Ms. Sanders answered that the governor's budget included
$24 million for FY 27, which was based on the ten-year
average. She highlighted the difference between the ten-
year and five-year average. She explained that the ten-year
average included the 2018 earthquake and both more recent
typhoons. She remarked that it was one way to address the
number. She was open to conversations about "what is the
correct approach."
1:46:53 PM
Representative Hannan asked if there was a higher average
when including the earthquake of 2018 than there was when a
five-year window was used the past session.
Ms. Sanders answered that the five-year and ten-year were
similar, but she would follow up with more detail.
Representative Bynum asked about five-year averages versus
ten-year averages, specifically related to disasters. He
asked if other factors were considered. For example, there
were models the state could reference to determine
projections for a year in terms of what forest fire,
wildfire, or hurricane relief would look like. He asked if
those factors were being considered. Alternatively, he
wondered if OMB only looked at a five-year average and if
costs ended up exceeding the appropriated amount, an
additional request was made in the supplemental budget, or
if the appropriation was too much, it would be vetoed.
Ms. Sanders responded that specific to fire, the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) had a very experienced team
looking at the data about what a fire year was anticipated
to look like based on historical information. The proposed
FY 27 budget used the same amount from the prior year. She
explained that the fund was being capitalized and the
funding was not lapsing on an annual basis. She stated that
based on the amount needed from year to year, the state
should strive toward some kind of average funding amount
that would cover multiple years that may include high and
lower cost years. She noted that the fund was new and
hopefully the trend line would start stabilizing with
deposits to cover the high and low years.
Representative Bynum asked if the department was taking
information from department experts into consideration.
Ms. Sanders replied affirmatively. She had met with the
department on that type of information.
1:50:08 PM
Co-Chair Josephson looked at the repeal of statehood
defense funds from previous years on line 19. He looked at
the associated note on the same line and thought it sounded
similar to the debate over the Juneau Access Road that the
dollars were obligated. He stated it could be a murky set
of facts in other instances and perhaps the current
instance could be disputed. He asked about the
administration's position on the legislature's efforts to
claw back undisputed, unobligated, unspent funds. He asked
for the administration's position on the legality of
striking dollars in a circumstance where there was no
dispute they were not spent.
Ms. Sanders replied that she is not an attorney and
deferred any legal inquiries or analysis to the Department
of Law (DOL). She referenced a memorandum provided by Co-
Chair Josephson in members' packets addressing questions
regarding repeals and the governor's veto of those line
items [memorandum from Marie Marx, Legislative Counsel,
Legislative Legal Services, dated June 24, 2025] (copy on
file). She shared the memo with DOL and the department was
currently reviewing it. From OMB's perspective, the line
item veto was appropriate in the current case. She deferred
and further comments or remarks to DOL.
Co-Chair Josephson did not recall whether he had routed the
opinion memo through OMB the previous summer. He considered
a scenario where the legislature tried to claw back what it
deemed to be unspent dollars and spent them in an entirely
different area. He asked if the governor could strike that
item because it would be a new purpose. He wondered if the
governor was allowed to strike the item because it was the
same dollars. He thought it was apropos of "part of the
reason we're here on the Department of Transportation
issue."
1:53:29 PM
Representative Hannan looked at item 10, a $1 veto under
DOR. She noted the item was a structure in the budget with
directive language to decommission the [Anchorage] office
the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) created the
previous year without legislative funding or structure. She
asked what structure remained for the funding of a second
APFC office that had never received legislative authority
or appropriation.
Ms. Sanders replied that it was the administration's view
that management and administration of functions and
programs within agencies was at the discretion of the
administration. She relayed that staff continued to work
out of the Anchorage office. The prior year's
appropriations spent from one appropriation as was the case
in the current year.
Representative Hannan asked for verification that the
office in Anchorage was not located in the state office
building and was located in a separate facility with a
separate lease.
Ms. Sanders apologized that she did not know the physical
location. She relayed that it was co-located previously in
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) space,
but she did not know if it was still the case. She would
follow up with the information.
Co-Chair Josephson noted that Legislative Legal Services
was available online if needed.
Representative Galvin observed that nine of the 29 lines in
the spreadsheet were directly related to education or
childcare. She emphasized that one-third of the vetoes were
taking away services for children. She asked if the
administration had determined education had been taken care
of [in other ways]; therefore, it had decided to take
funding from the areas [identified in the vetoes]. She was
looking to understand the reason behind the vetoes directly
impacting children.
1:57:07 PM
Ms. Sanders responded that she did not have anything else
to add.
Representative Stapp asked when the administration had
encumbered funding that was later reappropriated by the
legislature. He understood there was a time delay on the
CASR [Capital Appropriation Status Report]. He stated that
the report came out in November and typically money was
encumbered quickly to get construction projects out the
door.
Ms. Sanders answered that OMB had an intensive process that
departments underwent to go through the Capital
Appropriation Status Report (CASR). She explained that a
date was selected when OMB pulled information from the
state's accounting system reflecting a point in time. The
departments worked through their process to go through
project by project to provide updates, followed by a review
by OMB, with a public report due to the legislature in
January. There was a significant time delay between when
OMB pulled information from the state's accounting system
and reporting it to the legislature. She elaborated that by
the time the legislature worked on its versions of the
capital and operating budgets in March to May, the
information was up to six months old. She thought there was
an opportunity to work with the legislature to get more
detailed information or updates. She did not believe state
agencies had the capacity to go through an entire CASR
review because it took a significant amount of time,
especially for agencies like the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) and the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED). Ensuring there was more accurate information for
the legislature to make decisions was something the state
could work towards to prevent a situation where departments
were continuing to work on projects where funds had been
obligated through legal contracts between November and
March/April.
Representative Stapp thought it was fairly understandable
they would operate on a time delay. He stressed that the
CASR was a huge report. He asked if anyone reached out to
OMB to ensure a contract had not been signed before
reappropriating the money.
Ms. Sanders responded that she had not been contacted with
any updated information, but it did not mean there were not
many conversations occurring. She hoped they could get the
most updated information in a formal process to the
legislature to ensure everyone was on the same page.
2:01:11 PM
Representative Stapp thought it seemed weird not to reach
out to the OMB director. He understood that "obviously
you're not going to always have all of the information." He
hoped in the future that legislators would remember there
were many moving pieces in the administration and the
legislature did not want to be in the business of
micromanaging the departments. He hoped the legislature
would contact the administration in the future when the
circumstance arose.
Representative Tomaszewski referenced the memorandum from
Legislative Legal Services attorney Marie Marx addressed to
Co-Chair Josephson dated June 24, 2025 (copy on file). He
had not previously seen the memo and asked if Co-Chair
Josephson had solicited a response from the governor or
attorney general.
Co-Chair Josephson replied, "No." He elaborated that the
memo raised some key separation of powers issues. He noted
that the committees that would normally take up separation
of powers issues were Legislative Budget and Audit (LB&A)
and Legislative Council. He sat on LB&A, but no motion had
been made yet relative to the issue. He stated that the
vetoes had been made at the time the memo was prepared. He
explained that sharing the memo with the administration at
the time would not have led the administration to reverse
the vetoes; therefore, he had not shared the memo with the
administration.
Representative Bynum remarked that he had not seen the
memorandum previously. He asked to hear from Legislative
Legal Services about what the question actually was and how
it was important to the current conversation. Additionally,
he was interested in hearing DOL's opinion about the
subject in layman's terms.
2:04:08 PM
MARIE MARX, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES
(via teleconference), stated her understanding of the
question. She believed Representative Bynum was asking for
an explanation of the memorandum in plain language.
Co-Chair Josephson agreed.
Ms. Marx explained that the question the memo aimed to
answer was whether the governor's constitutional veto power
included the ability to strike language that did not
appropriate a sum of money, such as striking language that
repealed previously enacted appropriations. She relayed
that the topic had not been directly addressed by the
Alaska Supreme Court. However, in a 2001 case that talked
about what an appropriation item was and what the
governor's veto power encompassed, the court ruled that
reducing meant lessening an amount and striking meant
lessening an item to nothing. She thought there was a real
issue about what power the governor had to strike language
repealing an appropriation. She explained that striking a
repeal meant raising the amount of the appropriation
instead of lessening the appropriation.
Co-Chair Josephson asked about a scenario where monies were
repealed or there was an attempted claw back based on facts
known by the legislature that the funds were unspent and
held. He asked if the governor could veto the
reappropriated dollars from the repeal. He asked if the
governor could strike the new expenditure but not the
Session Law of Alaska (SLA) language from the previous
year.
Ms. Marx answered that the scenario provided by Co-Chair
Josephson was an interesting nuance and was not what had
occurred under the current circumstance. She explained that
if the legislature made a new appropriation using money
that was unspent, the governor would have the power to
reduce the amount or strike the entire appropriation as
long as the quantitative effect was to diminish the amount
appropriated. The court ruled in the Knowles case [Alaska
Legislative Council v. Knowles, 2001] that the power the
governor had was to diminish the amount appropriated. She
believed the governor had the constitutional power to veto
an appropriation item as long as that occurred.
2:07:38 PM
Representative Hannan stated that the largest
reappropriated money was DOT money from previous projects
to be used as federal matching funds. She noted the
reappropriation had been vetoed. She asked if DOT had been
asked to provide information on whether the funds were
fully expended or obligated.
DOM PANNONE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, replied that the
Legislative Finance Division (LFD) and some legislative
staff reached out for new balances in the CASR related to
some of the reappropriations and matching funds. The
department provided updated balances and a letter advising
that match balances were needed for August redistribution.
He explained that the balances had already been
incorporated into the project delivery plan and the age did
not negate the need for a new additional match requested by
DOT. He did not recall a conversation about other
reappropriations of projects used in DOT's match, such as
Cascade Point [in Juneau] and a project in the Mat-Su. He
added that some of the other reappropriations were not DOT
appropriations and he could not speak to them.
Representative Hannan asked if the other body's capital
[budget] chair's office reached out to ask for accurate up-
to-date data before the reappropriation of DOT money for
what was Juneau Access money at the time before it was put
in the capital budget as a reappropriation.
Mr. Pannone responded that he was not aware of a request
from either body. He noted that there was a slide dedicated
to the Juneau Access project [also known as the Cascade
Point project].
2:10:33 PM
Co-Chair Schrage asked when the Cascade Point project was
encumbered. He asked if it was after the legislative budget
came out.
Mr. Pannone looked at slide 6 pertaining to Cascade Point
in a PowerPoint presentation titled "House Finance
Committee: Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities," dated January 26, 2026 (copy on file). The
slide showed the project timeline beginning in April 2021.
He explained that the slide showed the $4.5 million spent
to date on design prior to the reappropriations. He
highlighted the engineering and feasibility and 35 percent
design build. He elaborated that DOT was in the process of
going to contract out the work prior to the
reappropriations. He did not have the specific contract
date on hand, but it was prior to the effective date of the
bill and any action taken on the bill. He deferred to the
commissioner for additional comment.
RYAN ANDERSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, referenced slide 6 showing the
Cascade Point timeline. He relayed that the project
delivery process involved making numerous commitments ahead
of time. He explained that a significant investment had
been made by the time the department awarded contracts. He
highlighted that $4.5 million had been spent on Cascade
Point to date.
2:12:52 PM
Representative Hannan asked why DOT did not request to have
the money previously appropriated to the Juneau Access
project reappropriated to Cascade Point. She remarked it
would have avoided confusion for the legislature to know
the money was being spent. She stated her understanding the
legislature asked repeatedly how much money remained in the
fund and there was no updated money. She observed that
DOT's timeline showed the money was obligated and she
wondered why the legislature was not asked to reappropriate
the funds in order to have accurate information to work
from.
Commissioner Anderson responded that he was not aware of
being asked for the balances for Cascade Point prior to the
reappropriation. The department had always gone forward
with the understanding that the scope of the
reappropriations was a fit for the Cascade Point project.
Co-Chair Schrage asked how the administration interpreted
the legislative intent if the funds were reappropriated to
meet federal match.
Ms. Sanders answered that she did not want to speak on
behalf of the legislature. She explained that the narrative
behind the reappropriation was to utilize balances of
projects to meet the [federal] match. The administration
did not want to put the state in a position where the match
was not available because the funds the funds had been
obligated or were no longer available because they had
already been spent. She explained it would create a
situation where the state could not meet its federal
obligations; therefore, the action taken was to veto the
appropriations and come back to the legislature with a
request for unrestricted general funds (UGF) to meet the
obligation.
2:15:46 PM
Co-Chair Schrage believed the legislature made it clear
that it felt that meeting federal match was more of a
priority than putting up the funds for the Cascade Point
project. He would not speak to the administration's intent,
but it appeared the effect was to not meet the federal
match, go back to the legislature to find a different
funding source, and to move forward with Cascade Point
anyway. As the appropriating branch of government, he found
it very problematic and difficult to find trust through the
appropriating process. He stressed the need to work more
closely in the next year to ensure there was clear
communication [between the administration and legislature]
while navigating the process. He followed up on
Representative Stapp's line of questioning and relayed that
there was communication with the departments on many of the
reappropriations. He stated it was necessary to figure out
a way to get clearer information from the administration.
2:17:25 PM
Representative Stapp asked what happened when the state had
a contract and it pulled the money. He asked if the state
was legally obligated to the contract. He considered a
scenario where the state put a project out to bid, awarded
the contract, and took the money to spend elsewhere.
Commissioner Anderson answered that it would be a breach of
contract. He thought it would set a dangerous precedent
across the contracting community to be unsure the money
would be there when the state signed a contractual
obligation. The department worked hard to make sure that
the contracts were solid and that the state had a good
reputation.
Representative Stapp asked if the contracts had clauses
specifying the state had to pay once locked into an
agreement. He questioned whether the state could
arbitrarily break contracts. He thought people in the
industry would not like it if the state started breaking
contracts "willy nilly." He asked if there were penalties
for breaking contracts.
Commissioner Anderson considered scenarios where there was
intent to award a contract. He emphasized that there was a
great contracting community in Alaska and contractors took
a lot of risk ahead of time when securing materials due to
long lead times and mobilizing equipment. He stated it was
tough in Alaska and there was a fair amount of money on the
line. The last thing the department wanted was to pull the
rug out from under a contractor. He relayed that once a
contract was signed, the state had a legal obligation to
the payments.
Co-Chair Josephson responded it was the reason the House
Finance Committee filed a supplemental bill. He remarked
that the point was important.
2:19:56 PM
Representative Stapp stated his biggest fear was a
situation where the state was in the behavioral process of
putting out RFPs and pulling them after awarding a bid. He
believed it would undermine the faith of the contractor
industry in Alaska. He separately had a question about the
Fairbanks armory that caught fire a couple of days back. He
noted the building was on the veto list for upgraded
maintenance. He relayed there had been money for the
modernization for the barracks. He hoped the modernization
had not occurred prior to the fire.
Ms. Sanders answered that the fire had been brought to her
attention earlier in the afternoon. She expected that as
with most fires that occurred in state facilities there
would be a process of ensuring that insurance covered the
cost associated with the fire. The modernization component
did not move forward due to the veto. She offered to follow
up with additional information.
Representative Stapp thought there was a bright side to the
veto because rather than spending the money on the
modernization, the building caught fire before the funding
was spent.
Representative Allard appreciated the work DOT did in Eagle
River. She stated that her sidewalks were cleared and there
were no ruts on the road. She stated that the legislature
reappropriated funds the previous session and pulled funds
from projects that were underway. She voted against the
action taken. She asked if it impacted the governor's
choice to stop the reappropriation of the funds with a
veto.
Commissioner Anderson confirmed that after the legislative
action, DOT had numerous questions about the status of the
projects and how it would work. He agreed it had been a
concern.
Representative Allard remarked that there were consequences
when the legislature took certain actions. She believed
Commissioner Anderson was indicating there were
consequences to the actions of reappropriating the funds.
Commissioner Anderson agreed.
2:23:18 PM
Co-Chair Schrage referenced the commissioner's remark about
long lead times necessary for contractors to gear up for
the season. He believed lead times were likely substantial
even for urban projects. He wondered how much notice
contractors needed ahead of time for projects going to bid
for a coming summer in Western Alaska.
Commissioner Anderson answered that it varied depending on
the type of work. For example, projects involving
transportation of steel products that had to be fabricated
had their own timeframe. He highlighted the rural aviation
program for Western Alaska and explained that when DOT
received grants and went to bid in the August/September
timeframe, it took all winter and sometimes the next summer
to get mobilized for the following fall.
Representative Bynum highlighted that there was substantial
discussion about the readiness of the contractor workforce
to do construction for Alaska and provide quality projects.
He remarked that in the past several years there had been
substantial volatility in the funding available for capital
projects. He asked Commissioner Anderson to talk about
situations where there was volatility in available funding
and the legislature was only trying to meet the minimum
match versus the scope of need and how it impacted the
quality and availability of contractors in the state.
Commissioner Anderson answered that he recalled talking
about the issue the previous year. There had been concern
from the House Finance Committee about DOT getting projects
on the street. The department really pushed to get the
projects on the street, and it had a record distribution of
$183.5 million in August. The department had a capital
program year that exceeded $1 billion by leveraging every
tool available including capital and federal funds. He
stated the contractors in Alaska were pretty phenomenal and
tended to work in different areas of expertise in rural
areas such as Western Alaska and the Dalton Highway and in
urban areas. He stated the importance of keeping the
constant workloads to enable contractors to keep work going
in different areas. The department was working on the new
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which
would be a topic coming up in the near future. He remarked
on the importance of maintaining the balance of work when
looking at how the federal funds were allocated.
2:26:58 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the contracts reminded
recipients that they were subject to appropriation. He
understood there was an appropriation in the context under
discussion. He assumed the contracts included the language.
Commissioner Anderson answered that he would follow up. He
stated there was specific contract language in terms of
reasons for default and termination. He noted the
department used very standard contract language.
Representative Hannan looked at the Fairbanks barracks and
asked where Camp Carol and Camp Denali were located.
Ms. Sanders replied that both were located on Joint Base
Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER).
Representative Hannan noted that one of the vetoes was $2.5
million in highway maintenance on the Dalton Highway
between mileposts 76 and 89. She asked if any maintenance
was done on that stretch of highway. She did not believe it
was the "big slough," which she thought was at mile 150 or
170. She assumed there was a specific project need. She
wondered if the maintenance was done with other revenues
since the money was vetoed.
Commissioner Anderson replied that mile 70 was north of the
Yukon River bridge on the Dalton Highway. The department
had done a lot of work up in the area and was leveraging
preventative maintenance funding on the Dalton Highway. He
relayed that the federal highway agency was working with
DOT related to the Alaska gasline and DOT may be able to do
an aggregate stockpiling program along the entire length of
the Dalton Highway to ensure it was ready for what came
next. The department had annual work on the majority of the
highway. He would follow up with information on work done
between the specific mileposts the past summer.
Representative Hannan had driven the Dalton Highway in a
commercial rig the past summer. She shared that the ongoing
frustration of the driver was that the pile of gravel had
been sitting in the same spot for five weeks. The driver
wondered why the gravel was not being used to fill
potholes. She relayed that the driver thought the gravel
would sink into the tundra if it was not spread on the
road. She added that the driver joked about personally
spreading the gravel if DOT did not do it. She clarified
she was not advocating for that.
2:30:33 PM
Representative Bynum understood there would be another
opportunity to have a long conversation about the budget,
DOT's needs, and some of his concern over how investment
was being made in the state through capital spending. He
believed the maintenance portion of infrastructure was
overlooked frequently, which could extend the life of
projects and create continuity between projects. He had a
lot of concern about the issue and believed the state was
underfunding capital projects. He referenced a question by
the co-chair that he thought made it sound like DOT was
issuing contracts without an appropriation in place. He
asked if that was taking place. He understood the state did
intent for projects to gear up, which were pending
appropriation, and contracts were put out once the
appropriation was secured. He asked if it was general
practice for the department to enter a contract without an
appropriation in place.
Commissioner Anderson responded that the funds were always
in place and backed by an appropriation before DOT issued a
contract. The funds were encumbered so there was no other
competition for the money.
Representative Bynum considered that perhaps an opportunity
where the state would not continue a contract was a
situation where a contract had multiple phases that were
pending appropriation. For example, DOT may put a contract
out for phase 1 work with the option to extend or award
pending future appropriations.
Commissioner Anderson replied with an example where the
Federal Aviation Administration issued staged grants in
Western Alaska. He elaborated that one year the department
would receive a grant for a certain scope of work and the
department received assurance from the federal government
that it would provide funding for the second phase the
following year. The department structured the contracts
with a way out if for some reason they did not work out.
2:33:20 PM
Representative Stapp viewed the Dalton Highway as the most
important transportation corridor in Alaska because it
represented the heartbeat of Alaska's industry. He asked
for the commissioner's perspective.
Commissioner Anderson shared that he had also been up the
Dalton Highway in a 10,000 gallon fuel tanker. He remarked
that it was a challenging environment and the distance was
500 miles from Fairbanks to Prudhoe Bay. He noted that the
last 30 to 40 miles into Prudhoe Bay was likely the most
beautiful paved road around. He elaborated that it took
over $100 million to get there. He detailed that the state
had invested over $500 million in the Dalton over the past
ten years. He relayed that the department was planning $500
million for the STIP over the next ten years. He explained
that it was a limited resource and the department continued
investing on the capital side. He noted that the department
would love to have state funds and years back there had
been some substantial state appropriations. He expounded
that DOT had done some amazing work up on the Dalton
Highway because it was possible to move much quicker with
the state funds to get heavy maintenance done. The
department was trying to work with the Federal Highway
Administration to see if it could get more flexibility to
do more of that work. The challenge was the limited
resource the department was balancing across the state. He
agreed that the Dalton Highway was important for the state.
Representative Stapp acknowledged the importance of every
transportation system in the state. He had a particular
love for the Dalton Highway as a resident of the Interior.
He stated that the department's stance was on the
consistency of fund sources. He observed that some of the
vetoes were things the legislature decided to appropriate
with general funds as opposed to funding through some type
of reappropriation mechanism. For example, he pointed to a
veto that occurred because the fund source was Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) funds
that were reappropriated for something as critical as the
Dalton Highway as opposed to UGF for something like window
replacements at Mt. Edgecumbe High School. He directed a
question to Ms. Sanders and asked whether general funds or
reappropriations through a state-owned enterprise were a
more consistent fund source.
Ms. Sanders replied that it was a hard question to answer.
She relayed that as the state's fiscal situation had
continued to decline, she frequently asked whether there
were projects on the CASR that could potentially be
reappropriated for another purpose. She stated that the
items should be evaluated; there were many items on the
list and old items on the list, but it was important to be
thoughtful about what "we're saying" is no longer a
priority in the state and what should be a priority. She
did not believe there was any opposition to
reappropriations, but it was necessary to ensure there was
revenue behind a reappropriation prior to putting it
forward. She elaborated that OMB did not want to put a
reappropriation forward that had zero dollars because there
would be no revenue to use toward a new item. The last time
she looked at the funding sources list there were between
350 and 400 fund codes. Some of the funds were
constitutionally required and some were statutorily
designated because the legislature determined something was
an important use. She thought it was important to evaluate
items on a case by case basis. For example, she had seen
appropriations made from the Higher Education Investment
Fund for purposes that were outside of the statutorily
designated program. She recognized that perhaps there was a
good reason [to use the funding on something else] in a
given year to meet some purpose. She did not want to say
there was a right or wrong, but she thought it was
important to evaluate each appropriation to ensure it
prioritized need. She was not saying the Dalton Highway was
unimportant. The administration recognized the importance
of the particular items. The administration determined it
did not want to use AIDEA reserves for purposes outside
what had been statutorily designated.
Representative Stapp understood. He thought it was
interesting that the legislature chose to use
reappropriation funds for something as important as the
Dalton Highway. He looked at line 17 of the spreadsheet as
an example showing $1.3 million in general funds for the
National Historic Preservation Fund. He thought it would
have made sense for the legislature to fund the Dalton
Highway work with general funds due to its importance and
fund the preservation fund with reappropriation funds. He
noted it was the purpose behind his question about the
reliability of fund sources.
Representative Moore lauded the department for its work
during a robust construction season in the Mat-Su the
previous summer. She remarked that Alaska's construction
season was limited in scope and fragile. She asked about
the impact of the funds being vetoed and the importance of
capturing the funds again.
Commissioner Anderson believed everyone recognized the
value of Alaska's construction season. He relayed that the
department had secured over $1.3 billion for projects
across the state including Mat-Su, Fairbanks, Anchorage,
the Parks Highway, Sterling Highway, Dalton Highway,
etcetera. He remarked that driving the highways in the
construction season was a bummer due to delays, but the
projects kept the state's infrastructure in good condition
and kept the contracting community healthy. He stated that
Alaska had a lot to be proud of with its infrastructure,
highway, and airport systems. The state met all of its
pavement and bridge federal performance measures. The
department had a good team of in-house and contract
engineers working on the bridges and making sure they were
in good condition. There were times when DOT recognized
challenges and it could move quickly to make repairs. He
relayed that some projects took five to seven years to get
through the process, and it was important to avoid
disrupting the funding flow. He explained that when funding
started changing, engineers stopped work, and began working
on something else, which resulted in lost time, money, and
opportunity to improve state infrastructure. He highlighted
the importance of stability in order to get projects across
the finish line and keep Alaska moving.
Representative Moore asked about the administration's
fiscal rationale for vetoing the funds.
2:43:02 PM
Ms. Sanders replied that the conversation around the STIP
had to do with whether the funds were obligated and there
was something in place where reappropriating funds meant
the money was no longer available. The administration
decided to deny the reappropriation of funds for other
projects and to ask for the general funds directly to meet
the state match in order for projects to continue and to
allow more projects to move forward.
Representative Moore stated it was unfortunate.
Representative Hannan relayed that the truck driver she had
ridden with had asked why DOT kept paving the last 30 miles
of the Dalton Highway instead of graveling and
blacktopping. The driver noted that the pavement would last
two or three years due to the conditions in the Arctic.
Commissioner Anderson replied that the pavement had been
put in place after the road had washed out in 2015. He
noted the pavement had been in place for eight years, which
was pretty good. He stated that typically Arctic pavement
lasted 15 years and could last 20. He explained that there
were a lot of maintenance savings in the operating budget.
He highlighted there was a lot of dust on the Dalton
Highway in the summer. He elaborated that the road surface
could lose anywhere from one quarter to three quarters of
an inch annually. The paved surface reduced the piles of
gravel needed for surfacing and saved a lot of funds.
Additionally, the department had minimal staff with
maintenance camps every 30 to 40 miles on the Dalton
Highway. When sections were paved it enabled staff to work
on more challenging gravel sections that DOT did not always
get to. The department would pave more if it could. There
were some areas where it would cost hundreds of millions of
dollars to make areas stable to pave due to the need to
raise embankments and insulate. He did not have the
statistics on hand but he believed about 40 percent of the
Dalton Highway was paved. There was a big push in the early
2000s when he started at DOT to pave the entire highway,
but it only got so far. The department was not actively
looking to pave the entire highway. He noted that DOT
listened to the truckers; there were areas it would like to
do more.
2:46:54 PM
Co-Chair Schrage referenced the discussion about long lead
times for the construction industry and the certainty
needed to plan for a construction season. He stated that
actions by the administration over the past summer had
given certainty to the Cascade Point project to some
degree. He highlighted that the action jeopardized hundreds
of millions of dollars in federal match necessary for the
upcoming construction season. He asked when the general
funds needed to be put forward to provide contractors the
certainty they needed to plan for the work in a fiscally
responsible manner given the long lead times for
construction combined with the uncertainty surrounding the
upcoming construction season.
Commissioner Anderson when the situation occurred, DOT
identified that it had over $30 million in match funds from
the prior year. He pointed to slide 5 of the PowerPoint
showing the Surface Transportation Program match timing and
federal deadlines. He relayed there was a plan in Amendment
2 to the STIP that went out to public notice that included
the amount DOT thought it would have for the full match.
The department had not finalized the amendment when the
reappropriations followed by the governor's vetoes
occurred. When the department finalized Amendment 2 it had
to reflect the amount of available match, which reflected
DOT's plan for the year. The department had the bigger plan
with the additional match, but when looking at the project
delivery schedules there was about $800 million to $850
million in projects and authorizations for programs,
utilities, and many different elements of project delivery.
The department had the match to get through July 1 with a
healthy construction season. After July 1, the department
would be missing out on additional funds. The department
was not slowing down and as projects came available the
department would advertise them.
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that the committee would hear
different testimony the following day and he found it hard
to know what was accurate.
Representative Bynum looked at the Cascade Point project
timeline and funding considerations on slide 6. He
considered the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) and the
Cascade Point project and how the two were linked. He noted
that the slide primarily addressed stage 1. He had received
a lot of feedback from constituents when an appropriation
had been put towards building the section of road
associated with the project. There was a lot of concern
about the highway system and how the particular plan would
link into the long-term situation with AMHS. He had
numerous conversations with the AMHS Board about long-range
vision and construction of new mainliners. Additionally, he
wanted to have discussions about southern reconnection to
Hyder and reestablishing the connection to Prince Rupert.
He stated that Cascade Point was a big obligation and he
thought there may be a bit of misunderstanding about how it
played into the bigger vision for the marine highway. He
asked the commissioner to speak about the specific decision
and how it impacted Cascade Point and how following on
stages would fit into the long range plan for AMHS.
2:52:28 PM
Commissioner Anderson replied that the long range plan for
AMHS was recently finished and was a good plan. One of the
elements recognized that to reduce operating costs long-
term, extending roads and shortening ferry runs was part of
the approved plan. He stated that Cascade Point made the
most of the road infrastructure to reduce the length of the
runs in north Lynn Canal to reduce the time and cost of
running the ferries.
Representative Bynum understood there had been major issues
with operating the current fleet, keeping boats in the
water and moving. He thought there was a bit of a
disconnect with his community and understanding where the
project was going and how the funding may or may not be
directly impacting keeping vessels underway. He understood
the desire to deploy for a long-term plan, but he was
trying to understand how the specific piece of work would
play into the goal and how it was different than the monies
being used for AMHS itself. He thought people forget that
it was part of highway money with highway match as opposed
to keeping a vessel on the water and going to a port.
Commissioner Anderson replied that the department could
follow up with a list of the different funding types it
leveraged for AMHS. The department had done more and more
with all of its funding types to ensure the ferry system
was running and in good repair. He stated that AMHS
Director Craig Tornga had done an amazing job on the
maintenance side with a 98.5 percent vessel uptime for 2024
and 2025. The department had been investing in overhauls.
He noted that some of the ferry overhauls were going longer
because more work was being done. The department was trying
to ensure it was set up as it tackled the idea of new
mainliners and replacing old vessels one at a time. He
relayed that the department advertised for construction the
Tustumena replacement vessel the previous Friday. He
detailed that the cost would exceed $300 million. He
elaborated that the Tustumena was over 60 years old and the
replacement was needed. He stated there was some good
momentum and good things taking place.
2:55:23 PM
Representative Bynum asked the department to incorporate
the necessary stages of work, particularly related to
Cascade Point, into its future presentations to the
committee.
Co-Chair Schrage considered whether his previous question
had been answered. He had asked when the general funds
would need to be provided as match to reclaim the close to
$600 million in federal funds. He asked how much money was
at stake.
Commissioner Anderson deferred the question to Mr. Pannone.
Mr. Pannone turned to slide 5 to answer the question. He
explained that when DOT projected its match it included
federal funds at varying rates and advanced construction
and August redistribution. Beyond July 1, DOT was looking
to capture $400 million to $500 million in projects and to
ensure the department captured reasonable August
redistribution beyond July 1.
Co-Chair Schrage considered the $400 million to $500
million in jeopardy. He had asked when the funds were
needed in order to ensure the state did not lose out on the
federal funds. He referenced the department's statement
that it was good through July 1 before it would potentially
be missing out on opportunities. He thought that was the
date when construction would start. He asked when the funds
needed to be provided for construction companies to be able
to deploy projects after July 1.
Commissioner Anderson replied that prior to securing funds
the department built out the plans, environmental
documents, utilities, and secured the right-of-way. Once
the work was completed, DOT certified the project and sent
it to the FHA to secure the federal funds and lock in the
match. He relayed that the process was happening currently
and all the way through until the end of the federal fiscal
year on September 30. He explained that it was a continuing
process and timeline. He detailed that some of the projects
may be certified after July 1 and would not be advertised
until after certification and the securing of funds. He
relayed that it may be October or November [before a
project was advertised] and those projects would be for
construction in 2027.
Co-Chair Schrage remarked that the conversation was
bringing up more questions. He asked if the department
needed the funding in hand to certify a project.
Commissioner Anderson answered that the department
certified the project and then asked the federal government
for authorization for the funds to build the project.
Co-Chair Schrage asked about the $400 million to $500
million in jeopardy. He asked if those projects were all
certified.
Commissioner Anderson replied, "No."
Co-Chair Schrage asked what was required to get the
projects certified and out to bid.
Commissioner Anderson responded that the design, stamps,
plans, specifications, estimates, environmental documents,
land acquisitions, and utility agreements all had to be
secured. There were a group of projects currently going
through the process.
3:00:15 PM
Co-Chair Schrage asked for verification that the
certification process was underway and was the only thing
holding things up. He asked for verification that the
department did not need more money and once it finished its
internal process and certified the projects, the projects
would go out to bid and the state would be able to take
advantage of the $400 million to $500 million in federal
funds.
Commissioner Anderson replied that along with that was the
federal fiscal year, apportionments, and the department's
authority. He shared that DOT only received a certain
amount of authority annually to make the obligations. He
elaborated that the department had a tentative advertise
schedule online showing projects and when DOT anticipated
they would be delivered for construction. He explained that
DOT believed it had enough match for certified and secured
projects between the present day and July 1. After July 1,
most of the match would be used up.
Representative Stapp thought committee members wanted the
department to get as many projects out to bid as possible.
He stated that members wanted to know if DOT currently
needed more money to get as many projects as possible to
contractors.
Commissioner Anderson replied that based on DOT's
projections, the current match would allow projects to be
bid and uninterrupted through July 1. After July 1, the
department would not have the match to continue the program
for projects from July to September.
3:02:52 PM
Representative Stapp was hearing Commissioner Anderson say
that DOT had enough match for the current projections. He
asked if the department was projecting fewer projects going
out to bid in the current year when compared to the prior
year.
Commissioner Anderson answered that DOT was predicting the
year would be very similar to the prior year. He stated
that the past year after the direction the department
received from the legislature and others, it leveraged the
advanced construction tool that enabled DOT to authorize
projects at present and pay them in the future. The
department was intending to do the same thing in the
current year, but it would not have the match to do the
full program.
Representative Stapp asked if Commissioner Anderson would
like to know the money was available sooner or later.
Commissioner Anderson replied that the department always
liked to have certainty; however, when the department
looked at its projections and targets for project delivery
in relation to the supplemental, it did not believe there
would be a disruption through July 1.
Representative Galvin thanked the commissioner for his
work. She looked at slide 5 and understood there were funds
the department had that helped with matching funds. She
stated that some of the projects that her constituents in
midtown Anchorage thought were going to happen had been
pulled off the table. She highlighted that 40 percent of
Alaska's population was located in Anchorage and she was
all in for making sure the Dalton Highway, ferries, and
everything else were working. She appreciated meetings held
with DOT and Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation
Solutions (AMATS) to determine what could be improved in
Anchorage. She stated that the biggest concern was around
high volume and high intensity accident areas, some
involving pedestrians.
Representative Galvin highlighted that there were some
traffic calming projects taken off the table, which she
believed could total around $30 million. She shared that
her constituents had made resolutions annually asking the
state to do better. She underscored that state roads had
seen the most accidents. She relayed that approximately 17
pedestrians had died in Anchorage, which was more than in
most other cities when comparing per capita. She emphasized
that the city was in the red zone and her district was in
"the reddest of the red zone." She hoped to meet with the
department to learn what she could do for constituents and
Anchorage to feel the state was doing the best, especially
on state roads. She read individuals' names into the record
who had been killed walking in Anchorage including: 30 year
old Sandra Blix, 33 year old Francis Katongan, 53 year old
Evan Larson Jr, 79 year old Gladys Graf, 34 year old Donna
Nielsen, 34 year old Lorraine Williams, 65 year old Carl
Schmidt, 49 year old Janice Tom, 43 year old Wonpen
Tawthaisong, 54 year old Eric Black, 33 year old Aaron
Cleveland, 85 year old Clara Mattice, 63 year old Arthur
Stepetin Jr, and 46 year Jason Felder. She emphasized that
half of the accidents were in her district. She asked what
was going on with traffic calming measures, which included
lights, putting trees in the right space, and more. She
asked what legislators should be doing differently to make
sure Anchorage was not dropping off.
3:09:07 PM
Commissioner Anderson replied that any death on Alaska's
highway system was tragic. He relayed that the department
paid close attention to safety and wanted to make safety
work in Anchorage. The $30 million referenced was highway
safety improvement funding. He had been told by his project
delivery teams that they could not deliver an Ingra/Gambell
[streets] project in the current year. He noted that a
number of legislators wrote a letter [about the issue]. The
department met with the mayor of Anchorage and had come up
with a plan. He detailed that the department revised the
plan, put the $30 million back in, and had talked to its
teams about different ways to resource the project to get
it finished in the current year.
Representative Galvin thanked the commissioner. She
understood that around $30 million of the $77 million
originally headed to Anchorage had been restored. She noted
that her district got one of the many projects. She
believed A Street was the only project that received
funding (among the many) in her district. She did not know
if the department would patch up an area near Northern
Lights Boulevard, Benson Boulevard, or Minnesota Drive. She
shared that she spent half a day driving with DOT in
Anchorage and had been told that the department paid a lot
of attention to data. She was given a list of the locations
of the "high cost" accidents with substantial damage to
people and vehicles. She emphasized that half of the
accidents on the list were in her district, yet she
believed only one project was restored. She thought half of
the funds had been restored and she was grateful DOT worked
with the mayor to make it happen and she was asking for
more. She stated that if there was approximately $1
billion, she hoped the department would strive to follow
the data and she encouraged DOT to include the districts'
data. She referred to the individuals who had been killed
in traffic accidents and stressed that they all had mothers
and many had children. She remarked that they were not all
from Anchorage and some were from rural Alaska. She
stressed that the state could do better for the community.
She would work together with the department and AMATS on
the department's responsibility of keeping the economic
engine going and keeping people safe.
3:12:48 PM
Co-Chair Schrage thanked the department for being present.
He had many concerned constituents and he referenced a
"meet the match" letter. He relayed that he had never seen
a similar coalition. He asked if there were projects that
would not occur in the coming summer if the additional
match that was vetoed was not provided by July 1.
Commissioner Anderson answered that it was possible
depending on how quickly projects could be delivered. The
department's current projections showed it would be ok. He
noted there was one factor with the August redistribution.
He elaborated that plans were due in May and July was the
deadline for the department to have a final plan for what
federal funding it was capable of securing. He shared that
the $183.5 million [in federal funds] was a record in 2025
and was more than the department ever thought possible. The
initial estimate from FWA was about $66 million for the
current year, but DOT would be requesting significantly
more. He relayed that there were some variables.
Co-Chair Schrage thought the commissioner seemed very calm
about the situation. He perceived that the commissioner did
not appear worried and as long as the money was received by
July there was no problem. He was trying to reconcile it
with the Meet the Match letter he had received from what he
viewed as an unprecedented coalition of businesses who were
very concerned about the state's ability to provide the
match to secure the federal funds. He asked why there was
concern and uncertainty from industry when he gathered from
the commissioner's testimony that everything was fine.
Commissioner Anderson answered that the industry had to be
worried because it was their livelihood. He understood the
industry perspective and confirmed the importance of having
certainty. He stated that having the matching funds in
place provided certainty for the fiscal year. He elaborated
that if DOT did not receive the additional match requested
in the supplemental on July 1, there would be projects that
did not go on the street. He explained that if the match
was available early it would add more certainty and the
department did not object to that. The department submitted
a supplemental request based on what it saw with its
projections.
3:16:18 PM
Representative Allard referenced incidents happening in
Anchorage. She was getting annoyed that DOT was blamed. She
stated there was a leadership problem in Anchorage. She
believed when the assembly voted to remove crosswalks and
allow people to cross anywhere it would wreak havoc on
state and municipal roads. She had heard a legislator tell
DOT it would have blood on its hands, which she found
atrocious. She relayed there was an interchange coming off
of Eagle River that she had been fighting for over the past
eight years. She noted that the problem had existed for 15
years. There was $8 million designated for the project, but
it had been siphoned down. She elaborated that initially
the project cost was $22 million and it was now up to $55
million. She stated that no one in Anchorage cared about
the road because it was located in Eagle River. She asked
if fixes to roads would guarantee it would solve deaths
that should never have happened. She did not believe people
were recognizing that individuals who hit the people who
had died were also traumatized. She shared that her
daughter had witnessed a deadly accident and was
devastated. She thought it was an [Anchorage] leadership
issue.
Commissioner Anderson answered that the safety piece could
not just be engineering and projects. He relayed that
enforcement mattered. He highlighted work done to improve
response times. Additionally, the department had put a lot
of money into educating people, reflective gear, and more.
He agreed that there were many factors involved and it took
everyone. He stated that DOT could not solve the problem on
its own.
3:19:07 PM
Representative Tomaszewski stated it was incredibly
devastating when any life was lost, especially tragically
and unnecessarily. He noted that DOT relied on a lot of
data. He noted that the Anchorage Assembly decriminalized
jaywalking in 2023. He wondered if it impacted the number
of deaths that occur in the middle of the road. He did not
expect DOT to have the particular data. He suggested that
looking at the data related to the assembly's decision
would be a place to start to determine whether perhaps the
decision was a mistake.
Representative Bynum appreciated that industry would come
speak to the committee the following day to share its
concerns or excitement about opportunities ahead. He asked
the commissioner to listen to the hearing the following day
to have a response in the future.
Commissioner Anderson replied affirmatively.
3:20:58 PM
Representative Stapp referenced a new overpass that had
been put in over the Richardson Highway that went over the
train tracks near his house. He had never seen numerous
cars flipped over in the ditch until the overpass had been
put in. He understood the overpass was built to improve
safety, but the train came once per day at around 2:00 a.m.
He now frequently saw cars flipped over coming off the
overpass. He wondered about the methodology used for
safety. He could not prove it, but he thought the overpass
appeared to be much more dangerous than the train tracks
ever were.
Commissioner Anderson replied that typically overpasses
were installed to reduce conflicts with railroads. The
department was currently working on the Parks Highway to
get all grade separations for all railroad tracks across
the board because there was a pretty serious conflict. He
would follow up with any data.
Co-Chair Josephson thanked the presenters. He reviewed the
schedule for the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:22:47 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:22 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 20260126 House Finance - DOTPF.pdf |
HFIN 1/26/2026 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 |
| OMB HB55 Mental Health FY26 Veto Summary.pdf |
HFIN 1/26/2026 1:30:00 PM |
HB 55 |
| OMB HB53 Operating FY25 & FY26 Veto Summary.pdf |
HFIN 1/26/2026 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 |
| OMB SB57 Capital FY25 & FY26 Veto Summary.pdf |
HFIN 1/26/2026 1:30:00 PM |
SB 57 |
| Legal Opionion Leg Legal 062425 HB 53.pdf |
HFIN 1/26/2026 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 |
| 02.03.26 HFIN OMB Gov Vetoes Follow-up to 01.26.26 Hearing.pdf |
HFIN 1/26/2026 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 |