NOTN- The City and Borough of Juneau is scrapping its participation in the long-planned gondola project at Eaglecrest ski area after costs ballooned from single-digit millions to an estimated $37 million, leaving the city on the hook to repay Goldbelt during an already tight budget season.
Finance Committee Chair Christine Woll said the Juneau Assembly voted Wednesday night to move forward with pulling out of its agreement with Goldbelt, which had helped finance the project. The city expects to repay about $12 million that Goldbelt invested, roughly $9 million of which has already been spent.
“We knew that increases at Eaglecrest were going to be significant over time, just because of aging infrastructure, and we knew that the public tax dollars probably couldn’t sustain paying for those increases at Eaglecrest.” Woll said, “So the vision was that by installing a gondola that could help take advantage of summer revenue from our visitor industry, we could provide a more reliable, non-taxpayer dollar-funded income stream at Eaglecrest, but for a price tag that big, it no longer becomes something that the city has funds to invest in.”
The gondola was originally projected to cost about $7 million, later revised to around $9 million when the city and Goldbelt signed their deal, Woll said. The latest estimate, about $37 million to install, pushed the project far beyond affordability for the City.
“It’s just terrible, what a waste of money, but we’re gonna have to figure out how to pay it back.” Woll said.
The decision to cancel the project now leaves Eaglecrest in a precarious financial position. Its future budgets had assumed new income from gondola operations during the summer months.
Woll said the Assembly has directed Eaglecrest to return with a much-reduced operating budget that fits within the traditional taxpayer subsidy the ski area receives.
The gondola reversal comes as Juneau is just beginning to create it’s annual budget for FY 27.
“Ultimately, the assembly is going to have to make some hard decisions about service reductions. We’re aiming to make about $2 million more in cuts before June, when we have to pass the budget.” Said Woll.
Members of the Alaska House of Representatives convene on the first day of the second session of the 34th Alaska State Legislature on Jan. 20, 2026 (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Legislature on Wednesday approved a stopgap budget bill amid an ongoing debate among lawmakers around war-driven oil revenues and whether to draw from state savings.
The stopgap budget bill contains $449.6 million in state spending including for disaster relief, construction, education, correctional officer overtime and some public assistance programs — expenses accrued since the Legislature and Gov. Mike Dunleavy adopted the state budget last year.
But the question of how and when all the items will be funded is still uncertain. Lawmakers chose to rely on anticipated oil revenue to fund the bill rather than drawing from savings.
The Alaska Senate passed the budget bill by a 19 to 1 vote on Wednesday, with Sen. Robert Meyers, R-North Pole opposing. The bill was quickly transferred to the Alaska House where it passed unanimously by all 40 members. The bill now moves to the governor’s desk for his consideration.
The Legislature created a select bicameral conference committee to hammer out differences between House and Senate versions of the budget bill over the last week.
The final bill includes $75 million for disaster relief to cover the state’s response to the Western Alaska storms last fall, and almost $100 million for fire suppression. It contains $20 million for the Alaska Department of Corrections for overtime spending, as well as $34.4 million for Medicaid and $12.8 million for other public assistance programs through the Alaska Department of Health. The bill allocates nearly $130 million toward the Alaska Higher Education Fund which provides grants and scholarships to students.
The spending bill also includes a time-sensitive appropriation for Alaska’s construction industry. It contains $70.2 million in state dollars to unlock roughly $630 million in federal grant funding that industry groups have said is essential for the summer construction season.
But how the nearly $450 million budget bill is funded is still in question.
Legislators have been closely watching oil prices since the start of the Iran war, which state forecasters have projected could potentially generate hundreds of millions in state revenue for Alaska.
Lawmakers agreed that if oil-driven state revenues from now until June 30, the end of the fiscal year, are not sufficient to cover the stopgap budget, then the Legislature will draw from state savings. That roughly pencils out to an average of $74 per barrel of oil through June to cover state spending, according to data provided by the House Finance Committee.
But that vote to confirm drawing from savings again failed in the House on Wednesday — the fourth vote held in the House this year. To draw from Alaska’s main $3 billion savings account requires support from three-quarters of the House and Senate.
The Senate approved the immediate draw from savings on Wednesday by a 16 to 4 vote, but it failed to pass the House by a vote of 22 to 18. It takes 30 votes in the House to spend from the savings reserve.
On Thursday, House Speaker Rep. Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, expressed concern at sending the budget bill to the governor with what he said was no “backstop” funding from savings.
“So if the price of oil goes down, the governor may not have the money ultimately, to finish up or to pay for operations,” he said for this fiscal year.
Edgmon said he is concerned with banking on future oil prices to pay the state’s bills.
“It’s the first time, I think maybe perhaps in Alaska’s history, we’ve ever done it this way,” he said. “It’s going to be very interesting to see how this plays out, because oil prices can certainly go up as well, but they can also go down. And it’s not the way that I like to operate in terms of being fiscally responsible.”
Members of the Republican House minority caucus in opposition from drawing from savings expressed confidence in oil revenues providing enough funding to cover state expenses.
“Everything in this bill the state currently projects enough revenues to fund,” said Rep. Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks on Wednesday. “We still have many days in session, happy to revisit in the event oil price changes and we need to structure something in order to meet our obligations. That is not a requirement at this moment.”
The stopgap budget bill now moves to Dunleavy who can sign or veto the bill or let it pass into law without his signature.
Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy delivers the annual State of the State address on Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2025, in the Alaska Capitol. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: Sean Maguire, Alaska Beacon
Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy delivers the annual State of the State address on Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2025, in the Alaska Capitol. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy has proposed eliminating property taxes for the Alaska LNG project to incentivize development of the $46 billion gas line and export facilities.
The bill was introduced to the Legislature on Mar. 20 and would exempt the project from local taxes in Alaska, including property and sales taxes. Instead, a volume-based tax would be levied once the pipeline starts producing significant quantities of gas from the North Slope.
In a statement, Dunleavy said his legislation “removes a structural barrier” that would help get the gas line built. The project is expected to create thousands of construction jobs, spur the development of new industries and potentially lower power and heating bills for consumers.
“We bring more gas into Alaska and stabilize supply — that lowers cost for families like yours and businesses,” Dunleavy said Wednesday on social media.
The state of Alaska is expected to collect over $22.5 billion in new revenue from the project over the next 36 years, primarily from production taxes and royalties, according to state economists.
In addition to exempting the project from property and sales taxes during its ramp-up period, the Alaska Department of Revenue estimates Dunleavy’s bill would equate to a 90% reduction in property tax revenue, once the pipeline is at full capacity.
Municipal governments are expected to take the biggest hit from that change. If the project was built under current tax law, they would collect an extra $13 billion in revenue through 2062, or $360 million annually.
Some long-time lawmakers have questioned whether the pipeline will result in reduced gas prices. Others have questioned why such a sharp reduction in property taxes is needed.
‘Industrial renaissance’
An 800-mile pipeline from the North Slope to deliver natural gas to market has been a dream in Alaska for decades. But prior efforts have all fallen short.
Supporters say its prospects have never been stronger. Key permits are in hand, several Asian nations are interested in buying Alaska’s gas, and President Donald Trump has voiced support for the project.
Former Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Begich has been hired by the Dunleavy administration to help advance the pipeline. He told lawmakers the 1973 oil shock helped spur development of North Slope oil. Now, war in the Middle East has upended LNG production and raised prices, which makes Alaska natural gas more attractive, he said.
“This is our moment,” he said to the House Resources Committee on Monday, calling the gas line “an incredible project.”
Glenfarne, a New York-based company, signed on to develop the pipeline last January. It owns 75% of the project while the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., a state agency, owns the remaining 25%.
But the economics of the $46 billion gas line remain uncertain.
Glenfarne chose to split the project in two. The first phase would see construction of a pipeline for domestic consumption, with delivery of gas targeted for 2029. The second phase would construct a plant and shipping terminal in Cook Inlet for export.
Alaska’s current tax structure means a 2% property tax can be levied on oil and gas infrastructure.
Dunleavy’s tax proposal would impose a volume-based alternative. A new tax would be levied at 6 cents on every thousand cubic feet of gas, which would increase by 1% annually.
The tax would only be imposed once the pipeline delivers an average of 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day or 10 years after gas starts being produced.
Dan Stickel, economist with the Department of Revenue, on Wednesday said reducing property taxes would help with front-end costs. He said the agency is not examining Dunleavy’s bill as a tax cut because it would help spur the pipeline and potentially lead to new state revenue.
Stickel told the House Resources Committee that AGDC and Glenfarne have said the project will not move forward without property tax relief.
At full capacity, the pipeline is expected to deliver 3.5 billion cubic feet of gas per day. Southcentral Alaska’s demand for Cook Inlet gas equates to roughly 70 billion cubic feet of gas per year.
Glenfarne Group CEO and founder Brendan Duval and Alaska LNG President Adam Prestidge stand while Gov. Mike Dunleavy recognizes them during his State of the State address on Jan. 22, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
Adam Prestidge, president of Glenfarne Alaska LNG, said the project would be an “industrial renaissance” for Alaska. It could create 7,000 jobs during construction and spur new opportunities such as data centers, he said.
Wearing a lapel pin in a House Resources Committee hearing that said “build the line,” Prestidge told lawmakers discussions on gas agreements are ongoing with Alaska utilities. He said agreements could be signed and made public in the next couple of months.
“This is the only way to significantly bring down the cost of energy for Alaskans,” he said.
‘Huge give’
The Alaska Department of Revenue estimates the state would receive $22.5 billion in revenue from the gas line through 2062. The majority of that windfall would come from production taxes and royalties.
Compared to Alaska’s current tax regime, Dunleavy’s proposal would see the state miss out on $200 million per year from property taxes once the pipeline is at full capacity, projections show.
The alternative tax structure proposed by the governor would see $64 million per year collected by municipalities at full gas production and $9 million annually by the state.
For municipalities, there would be a bigger hit.
The gas line is expected to be built through four municipalities that collect property taxes: the North Slope Borough, Denali Borough, Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Under Alaska’s current tax structure, municipal governments would be expected to share in $17.3 billion from the pipeline through 2062. Under Dunleavy’s tax bill, it would be below $4 billion.
Anchorage Democratic Sen. Bill Wielechowski, vice-chair of the Senate Resources Committee, spoke at a Tuesday news conference. He said legislators would look closely at Dunleavy’s proposed tax break and determine whether a 90% cut in property taxes is appropriate.
“I don’t know anybody in the Legislature who doesn’t want a gas pipeline. The question is, what is it going to take to get it?” Wielechowski said.
State projections show that under both tax systems, the owners of the pipeline are expected to collect $60 billion over the next 36 years.
Anchorage Republican Sen. Cathy Giessel, chair of the Senate Resources Committee, estimates Alaska has invested $1.1 billion to build a natural gas pipeline, but nothing has been built.
On Tuesday, Giessel cited costs like public safety that could be borne by communities along the proposed pipeline. She said it would likely take until the second phase of the project before 1 billion cubic feet of gas is produced per day. Meaning, it could take years before municipalities collect Dunleavy’s volume-based tax, she said.
“That’s a long time for these communities to have no property tax,” she said.
State data suggests local governments would take $6.3 billion in property taxes through 2042. Dunleavy’s volume-based tax would net them $1.3 billion over the same period.
“This is a huge give to the company,” Giessel said. “Will it still be enough for them? I don’t know.”
Mayors in impacted communities are set to testify on the governor’s tax proposal on Friday afternoon before the Senate Resources Committee.
Members of the bicameral conference committee charged with writing a compromise supplemental budget sign the final documents on Monday, March 23, 2026, at the Alaska Capitol in Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Members of the bicameral conference committee charged with writing a compromise supplemental budget sign the final documents on Monday, March 23, 2026, at the Alaska Capitol in Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Legislature is preparing to re-vote on a key spending bill that will cover millions of dollars in disaster response and construction projects in the current fiscal year.
On Monday, a bicameral conference committee voted 5-1 to send an amended version of the bill to final votes in the House and Senate. Those votes may take place Wednesday.
The state’s fast-track supplemental budget contains $449.3 million in spending — expenses accrued since legislators and Gov. Mike Dunleavy adopted the state budget last year.
Legislators are separately working on a budget for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1. A vote on that is expected at the end of the legislative session in May.
The supplemental budget bill includes $70.2 million to unlock grant-funded construction projects principally paid for by the federal government — a major lobbying priority for the state’s construction industry.
It also includes tens of millions for the state response to last year’s wildfire season and millions more as a down payment for the state’s response to ex-Typhoon Halong, which devastated Western Alaska last fall.
The new spending would largely be paid for with new revenue the state expects because of higher oil prices caused by the Iran war.
As long as prices remain high through June 30, the end of the fiscal year, legislators expect there will be enough general-purpose money to cover the expenses, plus a smaller package of budget amendments already proposed by Dunleavy.
Those amendments arrived too late to be added to the supplemental bill.
If oil prices don’t match expectations, the bill contains language that would allow the state to use the Constitutional Budget Reserve, the state’s principal savings account, to cover the difference plus $20 million in “headroom.”
That clause may run into problems in the House, where the 19-person House Republican minority caucus has voted several times against spending from the reserve.
It takes 30 votes in the House and 15 in the Senate to spend from the reserve; while the Senate has met that threshold and is expected to do so again this week, it isn’t clear whether the House will do so.
The 21-person, predominantly Democratic coalition that controls the House would need to attract at least nine minority votes, and in earlier votes, it was unable to do so — something that forced the bill into a bicameral conference committee for further negotiations.
Rep. Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks and the minority’s negotiator on the conference committee, was the only lawmaker to vote against the revised bill on Monday, saying he doesn’t believe any kind of spending from the reserve is necessary at this point.
Members of the House majority have argued that allowing reserve spending — if necessary — would provide surety for construction businesses making summer plans.
They have also argued that time is of the essence: Delaying action on the bill would mean those companies might have to defer purchasing and hiring decisions ahead of the summer construction season.
Members of the House minority argued that as previously written, the bill would have allowed members of the majority to direct the spending of hundreds of millions from the reserve, even if it wasn’t needed to balance the supplemental budget.
That version was cut to less than $375 million in spending, an attempt to attract minority votes, but while that approach worked in the Senate, it did not succeed in the House.
When the House failed to pass the reserve vote, lawmakers there sent the bill to the conference committee for further work.
While that committee was able to finalize a draft compromise, it won’t be clear until later whether that compromise can pass out of the Legislature.
NOTN-The results are in, residents in Juneau have been helping shape the capital city’s long-term future at “Juneau Futures” workshops and with a community survey.
“Juneau’s had Comprehensive Plans on the books for decades, since the 1900s, so it’s basically a big picture guide that helps us decide where and how to develop, usually, over the next 20 to 30 years.” Said Senior Planner Minta Montalbo, “I think it’s important to keep in mind that the Comprehensive Plan reflects community priorities, and it connects our values and goals with CBJ decision makers, with policies and actions. It’s like a reference point for decisions on how to best use our land and where to focus our resources.”
The effort is part of the “Our Juneau, Our Future” comprehensive plan update, which gathered input through 14 in-person workshops and an online survey aimed at guiding development in Juneau over the next 20 years.
The workshops asked residents 3 major questions, Where should Juneau grow? What does Juneau need to do to prepare for the future? And how should Juneau grow?
According to findings released by CBJ, participants outlined several approaches for where that growth should happen. Many supported investing in central areas like downtown Juneau and Lemon Creek.
Quotes in italics will be pulled directly from CBJ’s results.
Downtown Juneau and Lemon Creek were popular development areas with many participants expressing interest in building activity in and around central Juneau.
Others prioritized established neighborhoods such as the Mendenhall Valley, emphasizing investment near current residents.
Investments should focus on infill and areas with existing infrastructure.
Additional support emerged for developing multiple hubs, including Auke Bay, seen by some as an alternative community center, others pointed to North Douglas as a next step for expansion due to its available land.
North Douglas is the next logical step for development in the next 20 years, and then we can focus on West Douglas.
Across all responses, one issue stood out: housing.
Participants consistently identified it as the community’s top priority, even noting that “everything connects to housing.”
Housing was the most important issue for many participants. While approaches differed, it is clear that Juneau needs more housing solutions.
Respondents also stressed the importance of protecting neighborhoods from natural hazards like flooding and avalanches, and called for diversifying Juneau’s economy beyond tourism.
“Folks are focused mainly on flooding and protecting the homes in the valley, but we’re also hearing renewed discussion about landslide dangers and avalanches, so we’re going to want to be looking at that in the new comp plan.” Montalbo said, “Not surprisingly, housing for all definitely remains a huge priority, and when we’re talking about housing, housing options that suit a variety of needs. And then I think the third biggest category is economic diversification. Again, not a new topic, but we’re hearing a lot of concern about trying to strengthen year round industries, and find a balanced approach to tourism. We want to recognize the economic contribution, but people are also asking that we care for Juneau’s unique small town characteristics at the same time.”
Once participants had decided how Juneau should grow, they were asked to see how their scenario would hold up against future conditions, such as potential increase or decrease in tourism, funding, and natural hazards.
Participants said they expect tourism to increase, while state and federal funding may decline and natural hazards may become more severe.
In workshop scenarios, residents adjusted their priorities accordingly, shifting resources toward housing, hazard mitigation, and economic resilience when faced with those challenges, notably when faced with a decrease in federal funds, participants primarily divested from Remote Area Infrastructure and Waterfront Development, viewing them as non-essential “luxuries” without federal support.
According to the findings particpants felt, “no matter the strategy, growth should consider existing investment, current residents, housing needs, and hazard risk.”
Economist Dan Stickel talks to the Alaska House Finance Committee on Monday, March 16, 2026. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Economist Dan Stickel talks to the Alaska House Finance Committee on Monday, March 16, 2026. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
The U.S.-Israeli war against Iran has left oil markets more uncertain than they were during the Great Recession, a state expert told the Alaska Legislature on Monday.
In a pair of hearings, Alaska Department of Revenue economist Dan Stickel told state legislators that the volatility of global oil markets is the second-highest on record, leaving future forecasts particularly unreliable.
“The level of uncertainty around future prices in the oil markets now is higher than during the peaks of the Great Recession in 2008-2009 and it’s higher than the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it’s higher than any of the COVID spikes other than the initial April 2020 spike,” he said during a Monday morning hearing of the Senate Finance Committee.
“The message here is to plan for the possibility that revenue doesn’t come in exactly at what we forecast for the next couple of years,” Stickel said.
Oil is the second-largest source of general-purpose revenue for the Alaska state budget, and Stickel’s testimony came days after the department released a new Alaska revenue forecast showing $545 million more in current-year revenue than projected in the fall. Most of that higher prediction is due to the price of oil.
That forecast has snarled relations in the Alaska House of Representatives, which has repeatedly postponed discussion of a bill that would fund a variety of amendments to the fiscal year 2026 budget passed by lawmakers and Gov. Mike Dunleavy last spring.
On Monday, after more than two hours of acrimonious debate, House legislators again declined to take up the bill.
Soon after the House adjourned its floor session, Stickel testified in front of the House Finance Committee, and told lawmakers that “the level of certainty that we will hit our exact forecast is low.”
As he spoke, on the other end of the Capitol’s fifth floor, the Senate Finance Committee was simultaneously hearing from Office of Management and Budget director Lacey Sanders, who said the governor’s office was requesting another $18 million in spending for the current fiscal year.
Altogether, the governor has requested almost $427 million in additions to the budget. Add in additional spending proposed by lawmakers, and there’s only about a $30 million difference between the new revenue forecast and the additions proposed by the governor and legislators.
At the latest forecast prices, said Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage, a $2 change in the average price of a barrel of North Slope oil is worth $30 million.
He asked Stickel what the odds were that the forecast misses low by more than $2.
“Roughly a slightly less than 50% chance that we come in more than $2 below the forecast,” Stickel said, then alluded to the fact that there’s a similar chance of coming in above the forecast.
“The level of certainty that we will hit our exact forecast is low in either direction,” he said.
Currently, members of the House majority are advocating that legislators unlock the state’s principal savings account to provide surety for some of those budget additions.
Doing so would avoid problems if oil prices turn out to be lower than forecast.
But spending from the Constitutional Budget Reserve, the state’s principal savings account, requires 30 votes in the House and 15 votes in the Senate.
The House’s multipartisan coalition majority has 21 members, which means they need support from the all-Republican House minority caucus.
Members of that group have been arguing against unlocking the budget reserve right now, saying that the new forecast and the current balance of the state’s general-purpose accounts demonstrate it isn’t needed.
In addition, as currently written, the supplemental budget bill in the House would allow spending from savings regardless of the price of oil. That could allow the majority to dictate extra spending even if prices stay high.
The Senate has already approved spending from the Constitutional Budget Reserve, and on Monday morning, Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka and co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, said a draw from the reserve would act as a “safety net.”
Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, said senators don’t intend to spend dollars from savings unless it is needed.
“If they are not needed, they will stay in the CBR,” he said, adding that without permission to spend from savings, there’s a chance that lawmakers would need to return in August to fix budget problems in a special session.
The Alaska State Capitol is seen on Wednesday, March 4, 2026. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: Corinne Smith and James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
The Alaska State Capitol is seen on Wednesday, March 4, 2026. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
A potential $500 million windfall is giving the Alaska House of Representatives a headache.
On Friday, the Alaska Department of Revenue released a forecast predicting that the state of Alaska will collect hundreds of millions of dollars more oil revenue by June 30 than previously expected.
That forecast landed in the middle of an ongoing debate over whether or not to spend from savings to cover almost $530 million in extra expenses, largely added by Gov. Mike Dunleavy, to the state budget since last spring.
The Senate approved a proposal to pay for roughly three-quarters of those expenses and it is now in the state House, awaiting a vote that could come as soon as Monday.
Tensions rose on Friday, with no agreement among House lawmakers on how to pay for the proposal.
The House is led by a 21-person multipartisan coalition whose members have been urging fast action on the issue. They say it is particularly important to fund $70 million for the state’s transportation projects to unlock more than $630 million in additional federal funding.
Without sure money, majority lawmakers say projects can’t go out to bid and construction firms can’t make purchasing and hiring decisions.
The majority wants to use the state’s Constitutional Budget Reserve, a savings account, to provide guaranteed funding.
The majority can pass a bill on its own, but it can’t spend from savings on its own. It takes 30 members of the House and 15 from the Senate to approve spending from the Constitutional Budget Reserve, the state’s principal savings account.
The Senate has already given that approval, but in the House, at least nine members of the 19-person, all-Republican House minority would have to support the majority, and so far, they’re not willing to do that.
Part of that reluctance is because as currently written, the supplemental budget bill allows lawmakers to spend up to $373.6 million from the reserve regardless of whether or not the war-caused bonus becomes real.
If oil prices stay high and the reserve money isn’t needed, the majority could spend it on other things without further input from the minority. That’s because it takes only 21 votes to advance a budget bill.
The money would return to the reserve only if it was unspent at the end of the fiscal year.
If lawmakers don’t spend from savings and the Iran war ends unexpectedly quickly, causing oil prices to fall, the minority could vote to spend from savings later to fill the gap.
The result is an ironic set of circumstances — Trump has said that the war will be short, but minority House Republicans’ action is effectively a bet on a long war.
Minority members say they’re being fiscally responsible. So do members of the majority, who add that there’s an opportunity cost for any delay — Alaska construction companies can’t make plans for the summer until they know what projects they’ll need to build.
Majority members also expressed frustration that the supplemental budget was largely requested by the governor, who they say has been absent in negotiations.
In addition, legislators and Gov. Dunleavy could also find themselves with a problem if oil prices fall after legislators have adjourned for the summer.
Legislators typically write budgets based on forecasts from the Department of Revenue, but this year’s forecast is especially uncertain, the department said.
Rep. Calvin Schrage, D-Anchorage, co-chair of the House Finance Committee and a member of the majority, said he’s skeptical of banking on the forecast.
“I have a lot of concern over budgeting based on that forecast, because that’s all it is. It’s a forecast. It’s not realized money, it’s not money in hand,” he said Friday.
“Even with this optimistic forecast, you are just barely, maybe able to balance the budget — if everything goes perfect. We still don’t have additional supplementals,” he said, referring to more budget amendments that could be requested by the governor.
Schrage said lawmakers will be scrutinizing the forecast in the coming days and weeks, and he said there’s still the possibility the Legislature may need to draw from savings.
But minority Republicans said they considered drawing from savings fiscally irresponsible.
“Taking a draw from our savings account to put into the general fund to fund things that were, by all accounts and purposes, able to be funded without it would have been irresponsible,” said Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna, on Friday.
House Minority Leader DeLena Johnson, R-Anchorage, said she’s confident in the forecast projections. “There’s some actuals there too. So I’m very comfortable with actuals, and I also know, if there’s changes, we can come in and we can come in and make them, and make a different vote. I’m not as worried about that.”
Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, expressed frustration at the delay.
“This is pure politics. We should have had the supplemental budget funded. A long time ago,” he said. “The House Majority coalition prioritized the funding of the entire package that was proposed by the governor. Every single item came from the governor. And so here we are, you know, in a really precarious state, because we’re at the point where every week that goes by gets us a week closer to that federal match not being achieved for the summer construction season.”
Edgmon and other majority legislators have voiced frustration about “moving goal posts” on the budget bill. While there are more than $530 million in proposed additions, the bill in front of House lawmakers contains only three-quarters of that amount because majority members wanted to attract members of the minority for the savings vote.
The remainder will still have to be addressed later, regardless of what happens in the upcoming vote.
Edgmon said it’s not clear to him what the Republican minority wants in exchange for a budget reserve vote.
“We don’t know what the ask is,” he said. “But it’s all about leverage, and unfortunately, it’s falling on the shoulders of a lot of smaller contractors around the state.”
As of Friday afternoon, it appeared as if the budget bill was on course to pass, but without approval to spend from savings.
If that occurs, the state of Alaska will be in the awkward position of hoping for a war long and difficult enough to keep oil prices high for months.
The Alaska State Capitol is seen on Monday, March 9, 2026. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
The Alaska State Capitol is seen on Monday, March 9, 2026. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Senate voted unanimously Wednesday to spend more than $300 million from savings and reverse some of Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s most recent budget vetoes.
In a pair of 20-0 votes, the Senate approved a bill that would spend $373.5 million from the Constitutional Budget Reserve to pay for a variety of expenses and fill a deficit in the current budget year.
“This is money to fund the budget that was passed last year for things that the governor already spent on,” said Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage.
The bill now goes to the House, which failed last month to approve the needed spending from the budget reserve.
Among the expenses in the new supplemental budget bill is $70.2 million needed to unlock federal transportation grants. Dunleavy vetoed that funding last year amid a dispute with the Legislature about the proper source of the money.
Also in the bill is $98.7 million for the state’s wildfire response fund and up to $75 million for the disaster relief fund. That latter figure is dependent upon negotiations with the federal government about who will pay for the response after ex-Typhoon Halong devastated southwest Alaska last year.
The largest single item in the bill is $129.6 million needed to refill the state’s higher education investment fund, which was used to cover expenses due to a separate veto-involved dispute between the Legislature and governor.
That fund covers scholarships paid to Alaska high school students who meet academic standards and attend in-state schools.
The Senate-passed bill is significantly smaller than a $531 million version that had been previously considered. It shrank at the urging of the Senate’s six-person, all-Republican minority caucus.
It takes three-quarters of the House and three-quarters of the Senate — 30 Representatives and 15 senators, respectively — to spend from the budget reserve.
That’s a high hurdle, particularly because the Senate’s bipartisan majority caucus has just 14 members and the House’s multipartisan majority has just 21 members.
In both cases, compromises with the all-Republican House and Senate majorities are needed to spend from the reserve.
On Monday, the Senate pulled the supplemental budget bill from its schedule with no advance notice. Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, said at the time that the Senate Majority had unexpectedly lost a minority vote it needed to spend from the reserve.
That spurred hours of closed-doors negotiations between the Senate minority and members of the majority.
Since the United States and Israel started bombing Iran on Feb. 28, the price of oil — and, in turn, Alaska’s potential oil revenue — has risen, giving legislators another way to erase a looming deficit.
“We went over and talked with (the Senate Finance Committee) co-chairs and just said, ‘Hey, obviously, the price of oil is changing,’” said Senate Minority Leader Mike Cronk, R-Tok.
At the minority’s urging, the co-chairs removed almost $150 million from the bill — extra spending for state prisons, money for Medicaid, and millions in backup “headroom” for unforeseen expenses, among other items.
Cronk said the items removed during the compromise discussions could come back later, in the state’s regular budget bill, and the goal was to create “a real supplemental fast track” bill.
According to figures provided by staff for Hoffman, if Alaska North Slope oil prices average roughly $75 per barrel between now and June 30, the end of the state’s fiscal year, the state will earn enough oil revenue to pay for the removed items without spending from savings.
Since the start of the legislative session, construction companies have been lobbying for quick passage of a supplemental budget bill because they fear losing hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of federally funded construction projects scheduled to take place as soon as this summer.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has disputed the need for early funding, and on Wednesday, Sen. George Rauscher, R-Sutton, attempted to strike that item from the supplemental budget.
He withdrew his proposed amendment after encountering opposition, saying he was satisfied with the smaller bill on the floor.
“We’ve come down a long way from $500 million,” he said.
After the Senate voted on Wednesday morning, members of the House majority attempted to call a vote to confirm the Senate’s changes.
Members of the House minority objected, and the vote is now scheduled later, at 2:30 p.m. Thursday.
House Minority Leader DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer, said members of the minority wanted to wait until Friday, when a new state revenue forecast is expected.
“We’re talking about a $300 million draw. We may not need to take that full amount out of savings when we have money coming in,” she said, referring to the way the price of oil has surged during the Iran war.
Asked whether the new, lower draw from the reserve is more acceptable to members of the minority, Johnson said she wasn’t sure yet.
“There’s probably a number that’s better than others, but I mean, as low as possible is our number,” she said.
Monday night’s assembly meeting, as seen on CBJ’s livestream
NOTN- Packed public testimony at a Juneau Assembly meeting Monday showcased public tensions over the city’s budget, flooding, and looming cuts.
The public comment period stretched nearly 2 hours before the assembly could continue its regular agenda.
While much of the evenings testimony focused on budget pressures and big upcoming projects, one resident voiced their gratitude to the assembly for holding public comment saying, “I wanted to take the opportunity to say thank you to the assembly and to say that, you look at any scale of global events, down to national events, down to local events, there’s a lot to be fearful of and a lot to be anxious about. That being said, it’s too easy to displace that on, what you can yell at your local assembly.” Testifiers said social media can further exacerbate tensions, “Huge thanks to you guys, I know you have tons of stuff on your plate, and I know that it seems like you can’t catch a break, because I feel like, if it’s not one thing, it’s another.”
Multiple residents demanded the city halt or delay demolition of historic homes on city owned Telephone Hill, which the city hopes to redevelop for potentially, over 150 housing units.
“The CBJ is facing a $10 to $12 million budget shortfall. This will affect everyone in Juneau. It doesn’t make sense to spend $5.5 million on the discretionary demolition of Telephone Hill when there are so many pressing municipal needs.” Said Maureen Conerton, “Many Juneau residents have valid concerns and have testified against this project. including a former administrator, judge, an architect, a retired project manager, in addition to the more than 1000 Juneau residents who signed the Stop the Bulldozers Petition that was presented to you last fall.”
Juneau currently has a housing shortage. In an assembly meeting at the end of February, Finance Chair Christine Woll noted that demand is sure to rise with the arrival of Coast Guard personnel in the coming years.
Some speakers said they support building more housing in Juneau, especially downtown, but oppose the current Telephone Hill plan.
Others voiced concern for escalating cost estimates for the gondola project at Eaglecrest Ski Area, saying the price has ballooned far beyond early figures.
“I disagree with what’s been said about social media, I mean, that is the way a lot of people on short notice communicate.” Said Shannan Greene, she mentioned comments in articles by KTOO and the Juneau Independent and encouraged the Assembly to view them as public testimony as well, “This is an example of informal but honest public testimony from your everyday citizens. These are the people who are growing increasingly frustrated with your decisions.”
Residents spoke on flooding in the Mendenhall Valley and said the city has been too slow to address recurring flooding and erosion.
“Residents in the valley are left dealing with flooding, higher costs and the feeling that our concerns are always pushed down the list.” Said Amy Miller, “It isn’t frustrating, it’s driving people away. I’ll be honest with you, myself and many of my friends and neighbors are actively planning to leave Juneau as soon as we can, not because we don’t love this community we do, but because we no longer feel like the city is working for the people who live here, if the city continues to treat the valley’s flooding as a problem to study instead of a problem to solve.”
The Army Corps of Engineers recently, and without explicit reason, pulled back from pursuing the Lake Tap enduring solution, which had its own federal timeline.
The project was endorsed by Tlingit and Haida, the USDA Forest Service and Alaska’s Delegation, city leaders have been ‘Deeply concerned’ about the Army Corp’s shift in priorities.
City Manager Katie Koester said new federal discussions later this month could reshape the city’s strategy.
“We are very much committed to an enduring solution and committed to working on developing and furthering the lake tap.” She said, “We have received great news that Secretary Adam Telle and a large delegation of his high up staff will be traveling to Juneau at the end of this month, and as part of that, we anticipate new information and new strategy.”
Assembly Member Alicia Hughes-Skandijs said because Assembly rules limit speakers to two minutes and do not allow any back-and-forth, some of the most productive conversations happen informally. “You pour out your heart for two minutes, which is a very short time, or you’re trying to identify to someone you’re upset. When we’re in that process, we can ask clarifying questions, but we don’t engage. So the best follow up steps are the conversations that happen in the room, in between, on the breaks, things like that. So I was able to get some contact information and follow up with some folks and I think that happens pretty commonly, that it’s those one on one interactions.”
Concern also came from social service providers, who said potential cuts of up to 30% to city‑supported grants would shrink or shutter essential programs.
Leaders from the Southeast Alaska Food Bank, school counseling programs, the Glory Hall shelter and housing project, youth and senior services, mental health organizations and Alaska Legal Services all reported record demand and rising costs.
“I want to first off, take this opportunity to thank the assembly for the investment that they have made in our organization over the last couple of years. But with that in mind, I want remind you all that we work as social service organizations, many of which are present in the room tonight in partnership with the city. And we’re concerned to hear that the assembly is considering a reduction of investment in the social services block grant, what that would amount to is a reduction in services.” Said Dan Parks, speaking for the Southeast Alaska Food Bank, “I can only speak for our organization, but demand is at record highs. A couple of years ago, when I started with the food bank, we were serving about 300 individuals a week. Now we’re serving about 500 through our public pantry. We’re seeing more and more people slip from what used to be called the middle class into poverty. We also know that hunger doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s an indicator, a canary in the coal mine, if you will, of other social ills.”
They told the Assembly that fewer local dollars would mean fewer meals, beds, and legal and mental health services, pushing more people toward homelessness, emergency rooms and law enforcement.
Hughes-Skandijs said the Assembly welcomes the surge in civic participation, even when emotions run high.
“We welcome, public engagement. We always want more of that.” She said, “We want people to come and talk to their local officials, and we want to know how people are feeling. A room charged with emotion is sometimes going to be because there’s just so much happening. If someone’s brave enough, and we want them to be brave enough,this is where they should be. It’s their local government. And so we want them to get involved.”
This article has been edited to correct the spelling of Shannan Greene’s name and to adjust misleading language on Social Media in early testimony.
NOTN- Leaders of Juneau’s Eaglecrest Ski Area told city officials last night they are facing mounting financial and maintenance challenges, even as they press ahead with plans for a gondola and expanded summer operations to make the resort self-sustaining.
Meeting jointly with the Juneau Assembly, Eaglecrest board members and managers described aging infrastructure, declining season-pass sales and heavy reliance on city support that now pushes the ski area into a negative fund balance.
Board chair Brandon Cullum said the ski area is still recovering from a string of poor snow years, lift problems and price increases that have shaken public confidence.
“I think that the idea of restoring confidence is key,” Cullum said. “It may not be any one thing, but we’ve lived through a bit of a perfect storm here.”
Eaglcrest officials told the city that Eaglecrest opened 61 days so far this season, compared with 86 budgeted days, and has recorded about 305 inches of snowfall. While recent storms have helped, operations remains vulnerable to the inconsistent weather and equipment failures.
Aging lifts are at the top of the worry list. Many of Eaglecrest’s chairlifts are older models, built by a company that shut down in 2003.
“We’ve worked really hard through the summer, through the fall and even through this winter, things are costing us a little bit more, and we are trying to be mindful and responsible on what we’re focusing on.” Said Acting general manager Erin Lupro, “We have some aging infrastructure at Eaglecrest, between lifts, buildings, even our parking lot with those fun little dips that you experience in the upper lot. One of the things that I definitely lose sleep about is the lifts.”
Board member Jim Calvin walked officials through the financial trends, saying season-pass prices have risen sharply in recent years while adult, teen and youth pass sales all declined.
“We would achieve a break-even status in FY 32 or 33 again, under a certain set of assumptions about the gondola being built and being online.” Calvin said
Offcials said the ski area’s long-term strategy hinges the gondola and developing summer attractions aimed at Juneau’s roughly 2 million annual visitors, most of them cruise passengers. He said, expanded summer business could eventually eliminate the ski area’s need for general fund subsidies.
Until then, Eagle Crest is drawing heavily on city support.
Staffing is another challenge.
Officials said the mountain has the equivalent of just over seven full-time positions vacant, representing about 22 individual jobs, including three year-round posts.
The looming decision, board members acknowledged, is what happens if the city decides not to proceed with the gondola, or no longer allows Eagle Crest to operate with a negative fund balance.
“With the maintenance requirements, with our operating cost, with revenue where we anticipate it to be, to not carry a negative fund balance not only hobbles our ability to position ourselves for summer operations, but it hobbles our ability to contemplate winter operations,” Cullum said. “It’s definitely a question of whether we could continue to operate.”
Board members said they will provide the Assembly with a prioritized capital project list and are seeking to hire a professional mountain recreation planner to craft a detailed strategic and business plan for Eaglecrest’s future.
The Assembly is scheduled to receive a separate, in‑depth presentation on the gondola project April 1.
