Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 10, 2026 9:00am

Senate Finance Committee to order. A couple of minutes after 9 o'clock in Juneau, Alaska, June 10th. With me today are Senator Olson, Senator Kiel, Senator Kaufman, myself, Senator Hoffman. We have presentations from North Star Borough, Denali Borough, Matsu, and the Municipality of Anchorage. We'll start off with Fairbanks North Star Borough.

Mayor Hopkins, are you online?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am. Good morning. Good morning. You're coming in loud and clear. All right, well, that's good to hear.

Thank you very much. I see you on my screen on Gavel to Gavel, but, uh, I'm on the phone, so it's good to see all of you again, and I hope you're all having a decent day down there. My apologies for having to stay in Juneau for the additional 30 days. So, uh, from here in Fairbanks North Star Borough, this gas line obviously has been a substantial goal for our community as we look at, you know, the highest energy costs along the rail belt for us. The biggest need when it comes to a gas line for our community is the need for affordable— more affordable energy than what we're currently at.

Of course, we're all impacted by the price of diesel, and many— most— the vast majority of people in our community are still heating their homes with diesel. We have about 3,500 ratepayers currently on Interior Gas Utility System, which has seen a substantial increase since it was created about a decade ago. At that time, we've tripled our ratepayers in the time since creation of the Interior Gas Utility. So we've gotten most of our large infrastructure onto natural gas, a number of homes and businesses But the biggest obstacle for continued expansion of that, those connections, is purely the price. Both the price for BTU and the price of conversion for us here locally.

We're currently paying between $24 and $26 per MCF here in Fairbanks, which comes out to mid-$3.50 or so equivalent for diesel, if I remember correctly, for our BTU basis. So, as we try to— there's many homes and businesses that could connect to natural gas, but the price of connection, the price of changeover, and the price of a BTU is prohibitive. Earlier this year, we did start getting the first commercially available gas off of the North Slope being trucked down to our liquefaction plant instead of coming up from Cook Inlet, where we had been receiving it for the previous 20 years or so. Uh, that's fantastic if we have that for that, uh, current contract for the next 20-plus years, uh, in combination with Harvest Midstream and, and Hilcorp. But that comes in at that very high price.

So our concern here locally is not the need for more gas, it's the need for more affordable gas. And the only way that we're going to be able to get that is ensuring that if a major line is built We are able to get access to a spur line off of that main line. About 12 years ago, when the current route was selected, uh, the KPC and permitted, it was routed about 30 miles outside of, uh, what we'll call our city gate, our interior gas utility infrastructure. So we don't have any access to one molecule of gas off of this mainline without that spur line. And with only approximately 3,500 ratepayers to pay for that gas and to monetize, to pay the tariff for that spur line, it is essential that we would be seeing that a postage stamp rate across the whole gas line itself to pay for access for everybody along the rail belt who would be be able to get access to that natural gas.

That language is currently in Senate Bill 2001 and has been agreed to between the Fairbanks North Star Borough and Glenfarm, the developer. We worked closely with them to come up with language that would not prohibit the project from moving forward, not create roadblocks, but at the same time be able to ensure that a spur line was going to get built. For the last 12 years, our entire community, whether they're down there in the halls of the legislature or here, uh, back home, has been terrified that if and when a gas line gets built, we would be left out in the cold without that spur line connecting us because of that distance between the main line and us. Um, so the language that we have was agreed to between the two, uh, entities, and what it does instead of building 2001 is create essentially a trigger that the developer of the gas line would not be able to get the AVT tax break that's in there without a spur line being permitted and moving forward in parallel and with the construction of the main line to be operational within 2 years after construction of the— operations of that line. So that trigger is essential to make sure the spur line gets built along with it.

Additionally, that was something they agreed to. They're not going to get that tax break unless, um, the Fairbanks North Star Borough residents are able to see a molecule of gas off of that line. Um, the additional part that we were able to get into that language as well that was in agreement with Glenfarm is the post- stamp tariff that ensures that everybody who's getting access to the gas off the line is going to be paying one route— one amount for it. And that's essential because if the 3,500 ratepayers here in the Interior Gas Utility in the Fairbanks North Star Borough were paying for the spur line alone, it would become unaffordable and we'd be seeing more expensive gas off of that line than we would be seeing today. We have not been able to do the math exactly because we don't know exactly what the spur line would cost, but the— anywhere between the $180 million that was estimated 12 years ago and the $245 million that was put into the fiscal note instead of finance would be unaffordable for the community here.

So it would not be improving our air quality, which we're still struggling with here, but making very strong leaps and bounds over the last couple years. And as the State Department of Environmental Conservation is looking at splitting the borough into two areas, two non-attainment areas for wood smoke issues, that would put the Fairbanks area in attainment and the North Pole area out of attainment. So making sure that we can get affordable gas would be our best tool to be able to hook more of the people in that North Pole area up to affordable gas, support the changeovers, and get ourselves into attainment to finalize that effort we've been working on for 2 decades. That postage stamp rate language in the legislation also requires it to be approved by the RCA, making it— with acute conditions, making it a decision that is not, you know, your cost payer, cost— or cost cause or cost payer, because we're not directly causing the impact of this furlough. It was out of our control that it was created there.

And I apologize to Senator Kaufman and Senator Maric on the committee, but my joke that lands fairly solidly is, well, if Fairbanks has to pay for the Fairbanks spur line, then South Central should have to pay for the South Central spur line, which would be everything south of Fairbanks. So ensuring that we are able to get that postage stamp rate for everybody is essential to make sure it is spread across, as well as ensuring that we get any molecules of gas from that line. It also includes language that, you know, foreseeable future expansion here in the interior could get— would be— have capacity in that spur line and ensure that we can continue to develop and grow and get some more industrial baseload customers hooked up, whether that's Eielson Air Force Base, Fort Wainwright, GVEA, the university, a potential AI data center, or any other things that could be happening. Here locally. And of course, the more people that we hook up, the more baseload capacity we get, the lower that tariff is going to be for everybody.

There was an estimate in House Finance, I believe, during the regular session that Ua Wai'a Consultant estimated that spurline tariff addition on top of the entire line would be a 2-cent increase. So we're looking at fractions of the the overall tariff. So, um, it's not a substantial cost, uh, looking at the main, you know, the full $44 or the $54 billion line would, uh, with the LNG export would be, you know, a rounding error in that total number. And whether it's the $13 to $16 billion for the in-state use alone, $180 to $245 would not be a substantial increase and would ensure that the second largest city is able to get a single molecule of gas off of it. You know, I understand this would still benefit the Fairbanks community that many in rural and the other parts of the state would not get, but if we're able to ensure that the vast majority of Alaskans on the rail belt are able to get access to this gas for an affordable price, that would support economic development and, you know, cleaner air and the other benefits that are put into the whereas early in this legislation.

You know, these conversations with AGVC and the governor's office theoretically started back in October of 2025 when the governor reached out to all the mayors along the rail— along the route and said he wanted to start conversations with us. Those didn't circulate until late January. We had weekly conversations starting then with all 5 municipalities along the route. And they were decent conversations. I'd say it was fruitful and a genuine effort to get there.

Those conversations, we were able to get out what the individual communities needed. But because each municipality needed such specific things, it was difficult to come up with one-size-fits-all. Looking at what the potential loss of long-term revenue would be for the different municipalities. You know, Fairbanks only has— the borough here only has 2 miles of line going through it. So even at the full 20 mills, if we were taxing at that full rate, would be only about $400,000 worth of revenue.

So a 90% giveaway was a difference of, you know, $20,000 versus $400,000. You're looking at $1 million or $10 million a mile. So it was a loss of revenue to us here locally, but the biggest impact, like I said, was how do we get affordable energy off of this line was our bigger concern. So while there's a lot of very valid questions you're grappling with in terms of the AVT, what the state's tax reduction should be, what is necessary, what we here in Fairbanks North Star Borough are looking for is that economic impact, that affordable energy. And that spur line with the postage stamp rate is how that's going to get delivered.

And the language in that bill gets that there. It's agreed to between the developer and us, as I've stated, and that's essential. The— in terms of impacts to our community for construction, for operations, that was another difficult conversation to try to understand what the one-size-fits-all is. You know, we here in the Fairbanks North Star Borough don't have road towers, but we have 103 different road service areas. So depending on where the developer and the contractors and the railroad agree to have an off— a pipe offload yard, it's going to be a big impact, um, depending on what route they use, whether that's, um, on the western end of our community that would offload from the railroad or towards the North Pole area that would give better access to highways, but go through town more.

Those are gonna impact the different roads that we have and share responsibility with the Department of Transportation. The biggest impact we would see in terms of road usage would be our emergency medical services, our EMS services along the road. And that is something that we hear provide locally through our 5 fire service area contractors. We have a tax mill rate that covers almost the majority, almost the complete area of our Fairbanks North Star Borough plus the city of Fairbanks for those EMS services. And that's going to cover accidents along the highways and along the roads that is bound to happen when you're adding upwards of 1,000 trucks.

Regularly traveling up and down with long loads and heavy loads as well. Of course, we're familiar— many of us are familiar with the impacts of the ore hauling that are happening here in town coming from Manchot out in the Tetlin area driving through our community up to Fort Knox. Those are heavier long loads. These will be longer loads that weigh less. So our bridges, we're estimating, should be able to support the weight weight, but the traffic and the number of those trucks would be substantially increased.

And ensuring that we're able to get those impacts monetarily supported to be able to support our roads, our fire service areas, and the ancillary impacts is what's important. And so the— I don't— we were not able to exactly calculate what those impacts would be to our community. Because we're not able to say this is what, how many accidents we would have or what an estimate would be. But we are able to look at the, how we can handle our trash and solid waste disposals, which would increase substantially. We have an enterprise system here where we are, we pay for what you bring across our landfill waste stations.

Would be seeing increases in public safety impacts, housing impacts. And we've had a number of what we're calling our Gas Line Tiger Team meetings. Our Gas Line— or sorry, our Tiger Team is famous for working to get the F-35 fighter squadron here based at Eielson Air Force Base, uh, about 15 years ago. And it's been ongoing, but we have recently as a community redirected those conversations into into discussing what the gas line impacts would be for construction, how that— so we bring a number of stakeholders into these conversations to try to get a feel for what the housing impacts would be, what the impacts on the school would be, on the local economy. And we're trying to get ways that our local businesses would be able to participate in these contracting services.

We don't have anything firm yet. The Glen Farm has been a part of those conversations. Uh, we don't have anything firm yet on how those local businesses can partner. Uh, we do know that we're not going to see a substantial increase in permanent housing from Glen Farm as they're looking at creating those, uh, mobile man camps to move around during construction. So we'll be responsible for, uh, trying to ensure that we have the ability to house people who want to move here permanently.

That will look at our, also our housing, our hotel and hospitality industry, public safety, you know, restaurants, bars, grocery stores and things like that as the workers are doing their R&R and we see that influx. So with that, I just wanted to go back to the importance of the SPUR line, ensuring that there's language in the legislation That says the RTA will permit a postage stamp rate for the spur line, assuming that it goes through with the language that's been agreed to. So with this committee, I urge you to look at keeping that agreed-to language to ensure that we're able to get affordable gas relative to what the gas coming off of that line would be, understanding there's a big question is we do not know, even if the developer agrees to cap it at $16, that would add to tariff plus fees for the line plus fee tariffs for the interior gas utilities. So we, as much as anybody else in Alaska, would still need to see the LNG export facility happen to really get affordable gas. Otherwise it's $16 plus spurline or plus the— these days use tariff plus our 5-7 dollar tariff on your natural gas utility.

Not going to be that much cheaper than what we see today, but it will be consistent with the hope that we'll be seeing the LNG export coming to us. So I want to thank you all for your work and dedication to getting clarity on the legislation, understanding the costs that are going to be impacting the state, the transparency we need and the partnerships we're going to have, and ensuring that as we go through with it, we get that access to affordable natural gas here in the interior and across the state. Thank you very much, and available for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The current bill, I don't, I don't believe addresses the spur line construction.

We've had conversations with Glenfarm. They have no problem in building it. It's just a matter of who is going to be paying for that, and it's your your position that it should be paid for through a tariff on the whole line, including acreage? Mr. Chairman, yes. But on a clarification for that, you know, when I had conversations with Glenfarm in my office, they said they're not looking at building the spur line themselves.

They would not be putting it as part of the project. They would be be looking at finding another developer to build that, whether it's another utility, whether it's an IGU, an NSTAR, a joint venture that's been discussed out there. That has not been locked down, but it would not necessarily be Glenfarm itself. So that's one of the importance that we see the permitting running in parallel with the— with the permitting for that spur line in parallel with the construction of the line. And then that postage stamp rate, ensuring that we're supporting payment of that for Anchorage as well as— and Southcentral as well as vice versa, and ensuring that everybody who's getting access to that line is paying the same price for Alaskans to get access to Alaskan natural gas.

Yes, sir. So at this point, that determination hasn't been made, but But we understand your position. Senator Keehl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor, thanks for calling in this morning.

I guess the more we look at these numbers, the more convinced I am that affordable gas only comes, as you said, with the full export project. And I have yet to see a set of numbers that could even plausibly deliver $16 in-state gas without the export project. So if we're talking about the— if we're talking about building the whole thing to have a viable project, why wouldn't the cost of a Fairbanks spur be spread across all purchasers of gas, including foreign LNG buyers?

Thank you, Senator Keel, through the chair. I would support that. I was looking at it from where I am, as my main concern is making sure we can get that, um, the most affordable gas to Alaskans. Well, now you are right in the numbers that I have heard as well. If we want to get truly affordable gas that's competitive, um, to with lower 48 and the rest of the world for us here to be able to expand our economic opportunities, it's going to require the lowest tariff we can have for us here in-state.

You know, for the reasons why it should or should not be included in the LNG export, that tariff for the in-state use line as well as the spur line, that's going to be a question for the international market and the developers themselves. I don't have that answer specifically.

Myself. But the more it's spread across the users and the purchasers of gas, the lower the tariff is going to be for everybody. Senator Kiehl. Thank you. Appreciate that.

And then another question on the, on the language I read in Senate Bill 2001. You said it's all agreed to. I guess I have one concern. It's all aimed at the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. And they testified to this committee yesterday that they don't think they have a word to say about the tariffs charged across the line.

Ought this language also be directed at FERC filings from the project developer or owner?

Senator Kiel, through the Chair, my understanding, which is exceedingly limited, is FERC deals with interstate gas transmission. This being an intrastate line, they would not be dealing with it, but I'm no expert in that route. During our conversations in developing this language, we only had to stop the necessary— only thought it necessary to deal with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. And if the language in I have potential concerns that if a utility here in Alaska goes to the regulatory commission and looks for a tariff, that without the language that we have in this legislation currently, the RCA would be able to look at the spur line separately from the main line and look at it as a cost-causer-cost-payer situation, which would make gas even more unaffordable than it would be today. And having that language in there to ensure we do not hit that road bump down the line with the RCA is essential.

So whether they have the authority over the mainline or not, my concern is if we're not including the spur line as part of this project, we would be— we could potentially see an increased tariff for the IGU ratepayers alone that would render the spur line all but useless.

Further questions of the mayor? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We will move on to the Denali Borough where we will hear from Mayor Noel. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your presentation.

Yes, Senator Hoffman, thank you. Members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity. Good morning. For the record, my name is Chris Knoll. I serve as the mayor of the Denali Borough.

Can you hear me okay? We can hear you loud and clear. Great, thank you. So I'll just start, I think likely echo some of the things that my counterpart Mayor Hopkins stated, but ultimately again, really appreciate the opportunity to chat about the the bill before you, Senate Bill 2001, and just how this project would impact the Denali Borough. So I'd say I'll, you know, again echo Greer in saying we recognize the benefits of the line and the years and years of effort that has gone into this, again, if it results in lower energy costs.

So I also, having watched quite a bit of testimony from gone foreign over the last few weeks. Also understand the moment with the pieces that are in place and the global energy market the way it is. So I, you know, recognize that now, you know, is the time to really be focused on this and to try to get it right. For the Denali Borough, this would be new revenue. As you all likely know, the Denali Borough doesn't currently have a property tax on the books.

We're the only ones along the line with pipeline infrastructure that don't. Um, so this would be new— the alternative volumetric tax would be new revenue for us, and that would provide a host of opportunities. Um, I think a couple things that I just highlight that I, I personally would be looking forward to is, um, you know, the op— opportunity to potentially help with healthcare, which we have faced incredible challenges over the last couple or 3 years. And then housing, that's another one that we face. It's a challenge we face statewide, and then we're seeing that in the Denali Borough.

So it's an important project. We just don't want it to come at the expense of local governments. I wanted to highlight the Alaska disconnect, and I think this would also be the case with the Denali Borough, where this boom activity isn't, you know, our revenue isn't tied to economic activity. In our case, it's tied to bed tax. So there could be a, there could be an impact to our bed tax revenue.

Um, but we as a state would, you know, would have this boom without the resources to provide critical services. And for the state, the services that we benefit from the most here in the borough are trooper coverage and our, it's critical for us, but the Parks Highway that connects us to the rest of the state. And we're, you know, fortunate that way. So that is something I hope you all consider as you deliberate this bill. As far— you know, I wanted to highlight that Denali Borough passed Resolution 2610 in support of an alternative volumetric tax.

The pipeline, as proposed, there would be about 87 miles or 10% of the pipeline would cross through the Denali Borough. We would have about 10% of that that would directly cross borough lands, and that doesn't include some of the proposed camps, laydown yards, waste disposal sites, oil disposal sites, that kind of thing. So anyways, Revolution 2060 610, you know, we're in support of the ADT, in support of the CPI adjustment. I think a thing that I also highlighted is the— this bill has those ADT payments flowing directly to municipalities. We, you know, strongly support that as this is instead of a property tax that should be paid directly to the municipalities.

Where one exists. So, um, some of the services that the borough supports that, you know, would be impacted, as, as Mayor Hopkins mentioned, we— and many of these are indirectly supported. We're a limited local government, so many of our critical services that our residents and visitors depend on are provided by local nonprofits with support, supplemental support from the borough. And so those include mission-critical fire and EMS services up and down the Parks Highway. Solid waste service is one of our responsibilities.

We have a Class 2 online landfill. We would expect to see increased waste acceptance from this land use planning. As I mentioned, this impacts directly borough lands, and then there's indirect impacts in making sure that we're, we're going through our code-required planning processes with the developer. Then increasingly, we're seeing a demand for roads, road improvement assistance. There's a link between improved roads and access to housing, and that if we have raw land without road access, that appeals to a smaller niche of folks who's willing to either punch in a road or or access it remotely with a trail or something like that.

So looking at the bill itself, some things I, I just wanted to highlight, things we're in support of: the alternative volumetric tax flowing directly to municipalities. I mentioned that. I think that's really important. We don't, we don't want this to be subject to appropriation. The—.

I think on the rate itself, as I mentioned, this would be new revenue, but I think The thing that I would emphasize is that we feel that the rate should be the minimum required to promote the economic viability of this global, you know, export project, and no less than that. So I encourage you to continue to deliberate that rate, and I know you have quite a bit. We support the Fairbanks spur line for many of the reasons the mayor mentioned, the primary one being this would That spur line would provide our utility, Golden Valley Electric Association, better access to gas to offset their diesel— what is likely their highest cost of power, which would be their diesel generation. So we strongly support this, the Fairbanks spur line. So much of our economic activity, our tourism infrastructure, is connected in some way or another to Fairbanks.

So we, we support that Fairbanks spur. Along those same lines, I, you know, we— I would encourage the developer and look forward to meeting directly with Glenfarm to work with our communities during construction on offtake location. We really would have unprecedented access up in— as the, the line would follow the Parks Highway corridor where most of our population lies. So from the north the city of Anderson and Clear Space Force Station to Healy, um, and then down to the park entrance with the hotels and then the, the national park infrastructure moving through McKinley Village and down to Cantwell. We really have, you know, incredible access, but recognize that those, you know, connecting to that line, we don't have anybody currently using natural gas for heating in the Denali Borough.

And so to set up that new infrastructure is going to take resources. And so we want to move on. I support—. We really support the mitigation fund. And I do have concerns about the way SB 2001 is written.

We know the impacts are going to be immediate. And I think as written, the— excuse me— the bill, you know, it looks as though revenue wouldn't flow until the, the ABT is flowing to the state, which could be up to 5,000 or 5 million units of throughput or 5 years, and those impacts are going to be immediate. And so I would encourage you in your deliberations working with Glenfarm, see this as this mitigation and impacts as an investment in the overall project, an investment in the state, an investment in municipalities so that we're better suited to meet the needs of the project when they occur, the impacts as they occur, fire and EMS service, road impacts, the demand for housing and healthcare, things like that. So, and just another, you know, something else I'm thinking about, I think we're thinking about, is this desire to translate this short-term boom into long-term win. I'll use housing as an example.

The mayor brought it up, but the intention to make, you know, set up these construction camps in some ways, it segregates the impacts from our communities, but it also doesn't help when we've got housing needs. We could use a new subdivision for, like he said, the workers who come for construction but want to stay and make their home in our community. So. With that, I'd be happy to answer questions. We just really appreciate your deliberative work on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Do any members of the Finance Committee have questions for the mayor? Seeing none, we will move on to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and hear from Mayor Edna DeVries. Please identify yourself and proceed with your Presentation.

Good morning. This is Edna DeBries, Mayor of the Mansfield Borough, and appreciate this opportunity to give some testimony. I will be talking about what the Assembly has adopted some time ago, and we recognize the importance of advancing this LNG project. Strengthen emergency security, improve long-term affordability for Alaskans, and we enhance the state's competitiveness in global LNG markets. We appreciate the committee's efforts.

Thank you all for working and extending your time being free from legislative duties, and we appreciate I appreciate that very, very much. Thank you. The board supports transitioning from the current property tax structure to a volume tax with a ramp-up period to improve project economics. However, we have concerns with proposal to redistribute tax revenues away from the jurisdictions directed impacted by the project infrastructure. As we understand it, the original intent of the legislation was to improve the likelihood of project development by reducing the overall property tax burden.

Redirecting revenues, particularly when project costs will ultimately be borne by ratepayers, undermines that The Borough Assembly has adopted a resolution that supports a volume tax, protects education funding— that's very important to us— by exempting the increased property values from new project infrastructure, ensures effective municipalities receive the associated tax revenue, and provides the back stop if projected volumes are not achieved over time. We encourage the committee to preserve these principles. If the bill does not significantly improve the economics of the project and redistribute taxes to other jurisdictions, this does not change— and does not change the existing tax structure. The Macomb Borough has been very assistance in its position since February. And we have a generational opportunity here to support a project with the purpose of getting affordable gas to Alaska.

And we thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I am available for questions. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Is there questions from the Finance Committee members? For the mayor. Thank you for your presentation.

The last presenter that we have today is from the Municipality of Anchorage. We will be hearing from Mayor LaFrance. Please identify yourself and proceed with your presentation, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I am Mayor Suzanne LaFrance of the Municipality of Anchorage.

I am joined by Policy Director Nolan Clouda, who will also be available to answer any questions. I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify today, and let me begin by saying that I strongly support moving the Alaska LNG project forward. This project represents a tremendous opportunity for Anchorage and for Alaska as a whole. It'll strengthen our economy, improve long-term energy security, increase affordability for residents and businesses, and create jobs. I also appreciate this committee's work to ensure that the benefits and impacts of the project are addressed fairly and thoughtfully, along with the House Finance Committee and the Resources Committee in both bodies.

Anchorage is in a somewhat unique position in this discussion. The LNG pipeline itself does not cross our municipal boundaries, although it comes within 20 miles. Under either a property tax or alternative volumetric tax, we would not receive direct tax revenues associated with pipeline infrastructure. But we know that Anchorage will be deeply impacted by the project. We expect that many of the thousands of workers associated with construction and related economic activities will be based in Anchorage.

Our community will serve as a logistical, operational, transportation, and administrative hub throughout the life of the project. That will bring important economic benefits, but it will also create real demands on local government. Services. The Anchorage Community Development Authority, ACDA, commissioned a report from economist Jonathan King who analyzed the fiscal impacts on the municipality. The analysis shows that providing services to workers and to their families will cost more than locally generated revenues can support.

Over the 9-year project period, New service costs would exceed revenues by tens of millions of dollars. Since we rely on property taxes, we don't get new tax revenues from an influx of people until new homes and commercial properties are built and added to our tax rolls, and that takes years. But there will be immediate pressure on public safety, emergency response, transportation systems, parks, and other municipal services. We also expect significant impacts on housing demand at a time when Anchorage is already facing a constrained housing market. The report highlights our existing housing, housing shortage, which would make it difficult to accommodate large-scale workforce growth that would raise housing costs for current residents.

That's why we support the approach in this bill to provide a community impact fund as well as ADT revenue sharing on a per capita basis. Impact funds would help us prepare for increased service and housing demand. Revenue sharing would close the gap between our local tax revenues and the delivery of services. We're not looking for a windfall. We're looking for a practical and reliable way to help address the real impacts that project-related growth will have in our community and on the services that residents depend on every day.

A predictable revenue stream would help communities prepare, plan, and invest responsibly while supporting the successful delivery of a project that will benefit all Alaskans. Again, thank you for your work on this legislation and for the opportunity to testify. I very much appreciate your service to the state of Alaska and to our communities. Mr. Clowden and I are happy to answer any questions. Do members of the Finance Committee have questions for the mayor?

Seeing none, thank you for your presentation. That concludes this morning's session. Um, the, the next meeting is going to be this afternoon at 1:30. We will be hearing from the Kenai Peninsula Borough and a presentation by Legislative Finance. Is there anything else to come before the committee?

Seeing none, we are adjourned until this afternoon.