Alaska Legislature: House Finance — April 23, 2026 9:00am

I call this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order. Let the record reflect that it is 9:05 AM on Thursday, April 23rd, 2026. Present today we have Representative Hannan, Representative Galvin, Representative Bynum, I believe. Yep. Representative Stapp has now joined us.

We've got Co-Chair Foster and myself, Co-Chair Schrag. Also here helping our committee with behind-the-scenes work today is Committee Assistant Helen Phillips, Paige Tallulah, last of the secretaries, Bree Wiley and Leah Frazier, and our trusty LIO moderator, Emily Mesh. Thank you for all of your help here on our committee. As a reminder, if members could please mute their cell phones before we begin, I would appreciate it. This morning we will hold our introductory meeting for Senate Bill 214, the Senate's recently passed version of the capital budget.

And we've been joined by Representative Jimmy. Welcome. Here to walk us through the bill is David Scott, staff to the capital budget co-chair of Senate Finance, Senator Steadman. Thank you for being here, Mr. Scott. Good morning.

Please come up to the dais. You're here now. When you're ready, put yourself on the record. And begin with your walkthrough of SB 214. Thank you, good morning, Mr. Chairman.

For the record, I'm David Scott. I'm staff to Senator Steadman, staff to the Senate Finance Committee. As you said, I'm here today to present the Senate's version of the capital budget. Before I begin, I'd like to briefly go over, you should have some handouts here. Looks like it's A through F. Just, these are good ways to take glances at what's in the capital budget.

Number A, the statewide totals, and you can see the funding source of all those totals. If you look in the, which would be the fourth column, the government to the Senate, you can see the Senate in this capital budget added $156 million.

When you go to B, now this is kind of the, it's very similar to A, however this is broken down by the agencies, the agencies who received the funding here. So you can see where the funding went by agency.

C, handout C, this is all of the projects that the Senate added. So when you look at C, these are all the Senate adds. D is really the same thing, so I think you could just kind of skip over D for right now. And if you go to F, it's a thicker packet, F. This has all of the projects in there, including the governor's budget, underlying budget. And finally, there's also E. You have in front of the members E. This comes from the Senate Finance Committee.

These are all of the adds in the bill as well, just a different way to look at it. And as I go through my presentation, Mr. Chairman, I'm actually going to go down this this list. Do you see it right here? Questions from members on the process? I think that all seems pretty clear, but Representative Hannan?

I was sipping. Thank you, Co-Chair Schrag. Mr. Scott, just because I was still consuming coffee at the moment, C and D are duplicative and F is the all? Through the Chair, Representative Hannan, that is correct. Thank you.

Any additional questions before we get into the meat of this? All right, Mr. Scott, please proceed. Oh, and before you do, we've been joined by Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, for the record, David Scott. Mr. Chairman, the governor submitted a capital budget that was very lean. It was basically a match-only budget, and this is really a result of the fiscal reality of last fall before the price of oil spiked, and we all learned how important the Strait of Hormuz is to the world's energy markets and energy supply. So with the uptick in UGF revenue, the Senate is adding primarily deferred maintenance funding to the governor's budget. This increased spending is focused on statewide issues.

There are no individual projects requested by legislators. The Senate added no discretionary spending. Also, the Senate made no changes to the governor's submitted budget and we accepted all amendments.

This project, the project in this budget, the projects in this budget were selected by priority lists created by the university, the judiciary, and DEED, which is the Department of Education and Early Development. The Senate started at the tops of these lists and went down in order. There's no cherry picking projects for any political reasons. I'll, I'll turn now, Mr. Chairman, to the university system. This budget adds $17.1 million for University of Alaska facilities deferred maintenance.

Uh, the university's deferred maintenance list is included in their annual budget request, which around here we call the Red Book, uh, that is approved by the Board of Regents and it's submitted by the president to the legislature and the governor. The funding, $17.1 million, is spread around the state and it addresses the top 9 projects on the university's list. It is the 3 projects each, the top 3 projects each at University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Alaska Anchorage, and the University of Alaska Southeast. Mr. Chairman, this appropriation can be found on page 22 Page 22, line 31.

I'll say it again, page 22, line 31. I'll turn to the judiciary now. We have a question from Rep. Galvin and we've been joined by Representative Moore. Rep. Galvin. Thank you.

I appreciate the understanding that you've moved from their list that they've created, the deferred maintenance needs for the top 3 items on each. My question is, was there any consideration for number of students served in each university, or was it just straight up each university going to do it that way? Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through the Chair, Representative Galvin, we went down their list.

There's a list in the Red Book. It's here. It's on page 32. We did not take into account student. Numbers, we went down their university's priority list submitted by the Board of Regents.

Follow-up, Representative Galvin. Thank you. Follow-up would be, that makes sense. I perfectly understand that. But I was thinking that if you had a certain number of dollars to be parsed out and each university had their lists, that you might say, okay, let's take, I don't know, let's say UAF has 50% of the population.

8.5 Million is going to go to the first things on their list, etc., right? That would be bifurcated based on number of Alaskans served. And I just wanted to clarify for the record, was that the process used or was it just dividing it evenly between 3 universities? Mr. Scott. Through the chair, Representative Galvin, we did not use a weighted We did not approach it in a weighted measure.

As you said, we went down their list. Their list happened to be the top 3 projects at UAA, UAF, and UAS. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Scott, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will turn now to the judiciary. The third branch of government receives $3.7 million in this budget for their deferred maintenance projects. The judiciary, they're a separate branch of government. They create their annual budget request, how they do it, and then they submit them to us.

This funding addresses their top 4 projects. All of those projects are in Anchorage, Mr. Chairman. And the appropriation for this can be found on page 23, line 7. I'll say it again, 23, line 7.

Mr. Chairman, the majority of UGF spending in this capital budget is directed towards K-12 deferred maintenance. The Department of Education and Early Development creates two lists every year. One is the major maintenance list, and the second is the school construction list. The Senate's budget in front of you funds the top 15 15 projects on the major maintenance priority list for $45 million. The allocations begin on page 3, line 26.

I'll note here, Mr. Chairman, that these on the list submitted to the legislature, the major maintenance list submitted to the legislature, had a project. It was Galena, and it was second on the list, and it was for $34 million. That request was lowered from $34 million to $5 million, and we were able to go that farther down the list and other 10 projects.

Mr. Chairman, 3 additional projects on the major maintenance list are addressing deteriorated fuel tanks at rural schools, and they're included in this budget for $11.8 million. The funding source is the Spill Prevention and Response Fund. The allocations for these projects can be found on page 4, lines 26, 28, and 30.

Questions from committee members? Representative Stapp. Yeah, thank you, uh, good chair, uh, shraggy, through the chair to Mr. Scott. Thanks for being here. Um, always good to see our Senate Finance folks here in our lovely House Finance Committee.

A couple questions. So the Spill Response Fund, um, That's kind of been a hot potato of everyone trying to use that. I think if we match the appropriations together, we're probably woefully over appropriations from the SPAR, even with the Flint Hills settlement. So I guess my question to you is, how much are you using that? What's the capitalization left in your guys' version of your budgets?

Through the chair. Very good question, Representative Staff. I do have that information, just not on me, and I don't have it in my head either. We do know that there are two different appropriations, one in the House operating budget and one in— now one in the Senate capital budget.

In my experience, that will get fleshed out in the conference committee and fund sources could change there. Follow-up, Mr. Kocher. Follow-up, Representative Steffens. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Scott. So regarding major maintenance list, obviously not funding, I would kind of consider that as skipping projects. I know that's not you, it's a policy call in the other body, but I'm curious of the logic behind the capital improvement fund, because we kind of did a very similar thing where we added projects outside of the kind of vetting list for Mount Edgecomb. So I'm curious what the thought was on that. If you have any through the chair.

Mr. Scott? Certainly. So I could jump down into the Mount Edgecomb area, then address your question if that's helpful. Yeah, I can hold that too if you just want to keep going. I'll hold it.

Yeah, that'd be cool. And briefly before I get to Mount Edgecomb, the Senate also includes $17.5 million to begin construction of a new school in Stebbins. The school was destroyed by fire in 2024. For those who don't know, Stebbins is on the southern coast of Norton Sound. And Stebbins was the— it was the number 1 project on the school construction list.

This appropriation can be found on page 5, line 3. I'll also note, Mr. Chairman, that there's a re-apprope directed towards this project too. And that's found on section 13, page 34. I'll now turn to Maud Edgeman and hopefully address Senator or Representative Stapp's question. Mr. Scott, can you repeat the page of the reappropriation?

Yes, I can. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. The reappropriation that is also directed towards the Stevens School construction, new school construction, is Section 13 on page 34.

Mr. Scott, that's why on Document E we see a number less than $17 million. $1.6 Million, is that correct? That is correct, Mr. Chair. Okay.

And we've been joined by Co-Chair Josephson. Welcome and good morning. Representative Hannon. Thank you, Co-Chair Schragg. And because there's several re-approps there, Mr. Scott, what is the project that we are re-appropriating to Stebbins?

Mr. Scott. Or is it all three of those?

Through the chair, Representative Hannan.

So all the— there's a total of 4 projects there. There's the Flint Hills settlement. There is the replacement of the leftover from the replacement of the roof at the Palmer Pioneer Home. There is a— what's leftover for a Department of Health Medicaid Management Information System project and two of those actually follow up. Follow up, Representative Hannon.

Thank you, Kucharski. Mr. Scott, all four of those projects are completed and closed out through the chair. Representative Hannon, that is our understanding. Yes. Okay.

Just wanted to walk this out because we got in that little tough last year about reappropriations and closed out projects. Want to make sure we're not making that fumble again. Thank you. Representative Gellman. Thank you, Co-Chair Shaghi, through the Chair.

You had mentioned that there's reappropriation for a Department of Health information systems project. That one is a flag for me just because we have been asked again and again and again for more help for them to help develop develop their hardware, software, and making sure that we can hopefully avoid any extra fines for not being able to deliver SNAP benefits on time, or rather with fewer errors. And so that one, it just stuck right out at me, and I hope you can define what was completed, and that way we can be more comfortable that it was completed. Mr. Scott, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through the chair, Rep. Galvin, I would have to make some phone calls to get— I don't want to give you bad information, so I don't have that answer.

Understood. If we could get that a little later, I think that would be helpful, just because that's come up so many times in this committee over the last 4 years. I'd really appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Galvin.

We'll make sure that we get that. Mr. Scott, please continue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe I'm starting with Mount Edgecomb. Mount Edgecomb is receiving much needed attention.

The Senate is steering $13.9 million to the boarding school. The biggest project on this list is for the dining hall and kitchen renovation. It's a little bit over $10 million. The other projects included are window replacement in both the girls' and boys' dorms and new furniture, mattresses, and laundry machines. These appropriations can be found on page 3, lines 13 through 23.

I'll say that again. Appropriations can be found on page 3, lines 13 through 23. And I believe— if I could try to answer Representative Stapp's question, I believe his question is the funding source that that comes from the capital income fund appropriation that used to go to OMB and now goes to Department of Transportation.

I guess two things there, Representative Staff, is that Mt. Edgecomb is not eligible to be on any other list. They cannot compete against other K-12 schools. They have to compete against the $2.4 billion deferred maintenance list. They gotta compete against all other state assets.

And the second thing is if they were to receive funding, this is the funding pool where they would receive funding. So we are— the Senate felt that as appropriators, they wanted to use that. They wanted to direct those funds.

Any additional dialogue there, Representative Stamp? Give you the opportunity. Yeah, I think I have a kind of question on stabbing school. I think that's a satisfactory answer. Okay, very good.

Representative Galvin. Thank you, Co-Chair Chiraghi. Appreciate the opportunity to ask. So in our Education Subcommittee, there was— we spent a whole day on Mount Edgecomb because so much has been going on there, or rather so little in the long history. But of recent, there's been a lot of attention and recent repairs and recent changes to furniture.

And so I just wanted to just want to triple check here that this is an updated needs list because my understanding is— and they— the Department of Education brought in photos of what it did look like and then the changes made. And so I just wanted to make sure that the furniture and such that's listed here would be inclusive or mindful of what's been done this year, apparently. Mr. Scott, through the chair, Representative Galvin. Yes, it is taken into account. This— the list came from— there was a lot of maybe 3 weeks of back and forth with MnEdgeGov and DEED to make sure that these lists— that we're not double appropriating anything, that we're not going to waste money, or we're not putting what we call veto bait out there for— we're making— we really scrubbed this with DEED.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, and Mr. Scott, just because we are referring to Document E so much, can you for the record define the 3 columns in which we find dollar amounts? Yeah, I can. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I realized that this morning that the— so the first column of spending is DGF, designated general funds.

The middle column is other. And the right column, the far column, is UGF. I apologize for that. That's quite all right. Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Please continue.

All told, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the Senate is directing $88.7 million towards K-12 deferred maintenance and construction. I'll turn now, Mr. Chairman, there's—. I've got 2 questions for you, Mr. Scott, starting with Representative Stapp, then Representative Mr. Hellman. Yeah, thank you, Chair Strangy, through the chair to Mr. Scott. So regarding the Stebbins School, I probably— outside Co-Chair Foster, I think I'm probably the only one who's been to this Stebbins School before it burned down.

I can't really imagine $17.5 million being adequate for replacement costs given the location. So I don't know a lot about this project, so appropriating this money, I mean, does this get us anywhere near a replacement for a school, or Through the chair, Mr. Scott, through the chair, Representative Staff. You're correct that that is not the total request for this, but the good thing about capital appropriations that they last 5 years. And so we over the next 5 years we're trying to cobble enough together to get a new school in Stevens.

Follow up, Mr. Co-Chair. Follow up. Sorry to dime you out there, Co-Chair Foster, but I'm curious. What is the total amount, if we know, for replacement for Stebbins School? I'm sure there will be some sort of like insurance settlement too because it was a fire, I imagine.

But what is the— what is the delta, if we know, through the chair? Mr. Scott.

Through the chair, Representative Stapp, the total is $120 million. One more time. $120 Million.

Follow-up. Yeah, so that begs the question, I'm assuming they're gonna get some sort of insurance settlement. I have no idea if that's correct or not. I hope that's the case because obviously $17.5 million is quite shy of $110. So, and I would just hate to see a capital appropriation for schools sit in the capital budget hoping that we can get another $90 million cobbled together over the next couple years.

Through the chair, that's all.

Representative, on this— on this for both of you. All right, Representative Galvin. Oh, you're not on this for you, Representative. I am not on this topic. All right, let's go to Co-Chair Foster then.

Yeah, just to fill out the answer a little bit more, total request for the school, as mentioned, was $120 million. The requested amount from the state was $71 million, so the delta there would be the insurance that was received, I believe. And then of that $71 million, of course, this is $17 million in what's being called Phase 1 to get the initial work done. So the funding will be spread out somewhat. So thank you.

And on this, Representative Hannan. Thank you, Co-Chair Schrag. Co-Chair Foster, do you know what Phase 1 includes? Is that demolition and cleanup of the burn site and planning to construction, just— or will they need to hold that Phase 1 until they've got more money? So I'm— and I don't know if you know that.

Yeah, if you know, Coach Oster. Yeah, I believe the insurance— I know that demolition and removal of the old Byrne Building has been already done. It has been done, I know. And the insurance company, I believe, has paid for that. And so in terms of what the additional funds are being used for, my understanding is that it would be for planning, engineering, doing up all the work, and if there's any, you know, amounts that can be used for, you know, purchasing initial materials at this point.

But I think that the main part is just the engineering and the design and so forth. So, okay, thank you. Additional discussion on this item? All right, then on this, Representative Tomaszewski. Well, on the—.

On schools. Okay, let me go to Galvin first and then we'll go to you, Representative Tomaszewski. Representative Galvin. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. And if it's permissible, I, I'm moving down beyond schools, so if there's some other discussion that needs to happen in the schools area, I'm still on Schedule E at the bottom, so I'll I will wait if that is the will of the chair.

I think we will wait on that since that is planned to be covered by Mr. Scott. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Co-Chair Sharagi. So you kind of just mentioned real quick the school in Galena, the Huntington School. Can you give a little more information on that?

Through the chair, Representative Tomaszewski, there were— when the list came out in January, lots of discussion about about the list, there always is. A lot of people noticed that there was number 2, which is Galena, the Huntington School, that's such a large number that we wouldn't really be able to go down the list. So over the, you know, couple, 2 months till we get to where we are today, the several meetings have happened with the Department of Education, also with— between offices, legislative offices and DEED, and also myself and my counterpart on the House side, indirect calls on this project. And we didn't— we started those meetings. They knew that we started those meetings to see if we could try to reduce the project and what we could do.

And we didn't want to stop, uh, some work going on there. They deserve a school as anywhere else. But we, uh, we were able to, in discussions with DEED, that $5 million was a, a good spot for us to, uh, go down to, to not only reach down farther down the list, but also to— Galena could get some substantial work done. So follow up, follow up. So originally it was a $34 million state share and we're bumping it down to 5.

Is there, is there, I mean, I guess I don't know what the shape of the school is. I haven't seen that, but I'm just wondering what is that $5 million actually going to do for that school? Do you have any information on that? Mr. Scott, through the chair, Representative Tomaszewski, I do not on me or not in my not in my memory right now, but we do have information on what they could do with that amount in the capital budget. We can work to get some follow-up information.

I can follow that up with you. Thank you. Additional questions at this juncture? Representative Stepp. Yeah, thank you, good chair.

Just through the chair too regarding Galena's Huntington School, so also been to that one. Also Moonlights is a boarding school for a lot of rural kids who come there, very similar to Mount Edgecomb. I haven't had the opportunity to talk to Superintendent Johnson yet there, but I bet if I do, he's gonna tell me that skimping on the appropriation probably doesn't allow him to do much of anything. So I'm curious if you guys talked, reached out to the superintendent before you decided to cut the second, highest school maintenance project on the list and kind of jump to get other projects through the chair? Mr. Scott.

Through the chair, representative staff, we did all of our work through DEED. We did not talk directly with the superintendent. And I have a follow-up. Yes, follow-up, representative staff. What did DEED have to say regarding the funding of the project?

Through the chair. Through the chair, representative staff, That same information I'll get for Tomaszewski. Okay, we'll get to you. Thanks. And Mr. Scott, just to clarify again, this is the first time Galena has shown up on the list in this way and in this position, is that correct?

That's correct, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right, Mr. Scott, please continue. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, the Senate is also including a workforce development package in this capital budget and is investing in vocational Education for Alaskans.

This budget uses, uh, ADA dividend to fund 4 projects. The first is $3 million for construction of a commercial driver's license and construction driver training center in Wasilla. This is found on page 3, lines 3 through 5.

The second project, Mr. Chairman, is $3 million for equipment upgrades and program expansion at Avtec. Avtec is the Alaska Vocational Technical Education Center. That's in Seward. That appropriation can be found on page 6, lines 17 through 19.

Uh, the third project, Mr. Chairman, is, uh, $2 million for equipment upgrade at the Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center. This is on page 2. Lines 26 through 28. Uh, the final project, Mr. Chairman, is $1.7 million for the Kenai Peninsula Economic Development District. Uh, it's their instructional service center.

Uh, for those who don't know, the Kenai Peninsula Economic Development District is the ARDER for the Kenai Peninsula, and they're working very closely with Avtec, who was also on the Peninsula Sewer. Representative Galvin. Thank you, Co-Chair Schragi. Through the chair, this looks like really important investments in capital for workforce development, and I'm very grateful. Don't get me wrong, but I do have a question.

I'm not seeing anything that's Anchorage-centered here at all. I see great work happening in Kenai and wonderful work at the Pipeline Training Center, which will be important, um, out in the valley and in Seward. And, um, being from Anchorage, I have to ask. I know that there's been a new, relatively new— I went to a— I think it was just the very beginning of breaking ground for a carpenter's— it's a whole training center there. So I just wondered if there's been discussion around, or was there a reason to not include an Anchorage center for workforce?

Mr. Scott, through the chair, Representative Galvin, there was no definite meeting where we said, all right, let's— how we keep out Anchorage. I can assure I can assure you that that didn't happen. We just really looked at— it wasn't trying to keep money out of the Anchorage bowl. It wasn't that at all. It was we were looking at opportunities in case a gas line is in our future and that Alaskans can participate in that and work.

Flourish. And so we looked at the pipeline training center. We saw that the Teamsters had this commercial driver's license project in CAPSYS. We saw that, and then we talked to— we wanted to talk directly to AVTEC, but we ended up talking to Department of Labor about it, about that. And that's kind of where the seeking to Give funding kind of stopped at that area because we didn't really have— if there was untold amounts of money, we probably would have looked all over, but we didn't.

Follow-up? Yeah, follow-up. Thank you. Appreciate— I mean, I've been to all of these and they're absolutely excellent places, centers of workforce development. And I know that we have, again, 40% of the population in Anchorage and We want to make sure to plug those folks into great work.

So I have to put that word in and I will be thinking about opportunities. And I know that you have to distribute funds as best as you can and as fairly as you can. So I do appreciate where you're coming from. And I just want to add, I appreciate the investment in workforce development, period. So thank you.

Thank you. Excuse me, Representative Hannan and then Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Schrag, Mr. Scott, could you reprise where the Kenai Art or Money is in the budget? I can. Mr. Scott.

It's on page 2, lines 29 through 31. And then follow-up. Follow-up, Representative Handy. That program I'm not as familiar with, but can you affirm that The Teamster Driving Center in Palmer, the Pipeline Training Center in Fairbanks, and the Avtech Center in Seward all serve statewide applicants and projects. And I don't know about the Kenai program, so if you know if they serve statewide or if you have to be a Kenai resident to apply to that program.

Mr. Skon. Through the chair, Representative Hannon, it is all statewide. Students come from all over the state to go to AVTEC. Students come from all over the state to go to the Fairbanks Training Center. AVTEC is working very closely with the Kenai, the Kenai Instructional Service Center, with those folks down there regarding heavy equipment and welders.

And so they're working very— AVTEC, just because of their proximity, they're working very close together. And they take students from all over Alaska. It's not railbelt-centric. It's not. Thank you.

Koochirshraga, just one follow-up comment. Yes. I think I've shared it with the committee before that I have a nephew from Prince of Wales who is an AVTEC graduate who's making bank as an electrician all over Southeast. And I'm thrilled that he's had that opportunity and has come back to our region to work. That training center is serving Alaskans.

Wonderful. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Schragg. Through the chair, Mr. Scott, thank you for being here. The union indicated that these items that we just discussed were coming from ADA receipts.

Is this part of the dividend, $17 million dividend that they're giving us, or something additional? Mr. Scott. Through the chair, Representative Bynum, it is their dividend. It comes from their dividend as a— I don't have all the facts on me right now. I don't want to give bad— I wasn't expecting the question, so I'd like to explain it more, but I don't— I want to get it right.

I can follow up later. Thank you. Thank you. Additional questions? Uh, Coach Joseph, are we under any and all questions?

We're kind of going down List E, so we're really under debate. DCCED currently. All right. Then I'll wait. Very good.

Mr. Scott? I'm in DCCED. Rep. Galvin. Thank you, Reverend. Thank you very much, Co-Chair Sharagi.

I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question around DCCED that is part of the subcommittee where I was hearing a lot of conversation around different wishes. One thing that left the org chart was the Alaska Travel Industry Association. And that was a surprise to me. And so I appreciate seeing this here very much so. And I just wanted to ask if that is the amount, the $4 million is the amount that the Travel Industry Association asked for.

Mr. Scott, jumping down to the bottom of the list. Yes, I got it. Through the chair, Representative Galvin. It's below what they asked for. They—.

We— they asked for $10 million. We're giving them $4 million. Representative Galvin. Thank you. I appreciate that.

And I think in the past it's been around $5 million. And I know that the multiplier effect, if you hear their numbers is, is absolutely astonishing how much they're bringing in, at least into our economy here in Alaska. So I appreciate knowing what the ask was, and also I wanted to make sure to plug in that my recollection is that as a state we've been investing approximately $5 million-ish over the years, and sometimes that doesn't get fully through the whole process. And then the other question I wanted to ask you is around this ASME. Same question.

Is that what the ask was? Mr. Scott. Through the Chair, Representative Galvin, the ask, it's under their ask, but I know their ask was not $10 million. Off the top of my head, I don't remember what I don't know what it was, but it wasn't that. Representative Galvin, follow up.

Thank you, Co-Chair Schraggi. My understanding is that both of these organizations have at least been in the area of $5 to $10 million, so I just wanted to make sure to put that voice out on the table because in the subcommittee I was surprised to see it gone, and I will explain to the public that when I asked why was that removed from the table of asks from the governor, from the governor's department? What I was told is that they were leaning in on necessity, health, absolutely the most urgent asks only. So it wasn't because they didn't think it was important, is my understanding, but it was because at that time I think that they were budgeting on a very different price of oil, if you will, frankly. I think they were expecting a different revenue set of numbers than what they ended up dealing with today.

So I just wanted to make sure that we're aware of, you know, the more general perception that there is a positive feeling around the work that— and the revenue that these two organizations are bringing in, in the broader picture of our economy. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you for those comments, Representative Galvin. I think the bodies have generally provided— had strong support for ATIA and ASMI. I would note it was unfortunate last year we saw some administrative vetoes of funds that were appropriated to those two organizations, but maybe a new opportunity this year.

So, Mr. Scott, do you want to continue? I think we were on Document E, line 17. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Senate's capital budget appropriates revenue accrued from the cruise passenger head tax. All revenue from this tax is restricted and it must be sent— must be spent on port facilities, harbor infrastructure, and other services provided to commercial passenger vessels.

This restriction is federal in nature. It stems from the United States Constitution's tonnage clause. The first tranche of spending is from the Ocean Ranger account. This is to fund port electrification. This is so cruise ships can plug in and turn off their generators when they're in port.

Uh, there was $15.3 million was in the governor's budget. The Senate added what was left in the Ocean Ranger account, $3 million, and split the funding between Juneau and Ketchikan. The second tranche of spending is from the cruise passenger head tax. This tax revenue accrues in this fund because the entirety of the head tax is not distributed through the first 7 ports of call formula. That could be found in 4352.230.

I'll repeat it, that could be found in 4352.230. The remaining revenue builds over time And, uh, 2020 was the last time funds were appropriated from this account. The Senate is allocating these funds based on a 3-year average of visitor traffic by port. So $37.5 million will be allocated to 16 communities that welcome cruise ships to their ports. The appropriation and allocations are in the language section of the bill, specifically Section 12, and that starts on page $1.33 million.

All right, pausing for questions. Not seeing any. Please continue. The other funding included here in the budget, Mr. Chairman, is $5.3 million for the Renewable Energy Fund Round 18 projects. This—.

The funding, $5.3 million, addresses their top 3 projects. That list comes from AEA and the— and REFAC, which is the Renewable Energy Fund something committee. I don't know what it's called. But it's a committee by— that's in AEA and it includes legislators. And we use the top 3 projects from that list.

There's $2 million for the judiciary to purchase the Stratton Library from the Department of Education. And then as previously mentioned, there's $4 million each for Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and the Alaska Travel Industry Association so they could market Alaska.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Senate is balancing their budgets on $73 a barrel, even though the spring forecast projection is $75 a barrel. Senate capital budget adds $156 million in total spending. $88.7 Million of that is UGF. All of this is in addition to the governor's underlying budget that leverages $1.9 billion in federal funds for a total spend of $2.47 billion. Mr. Chairman, Alaska has a deferred maintenance backlog of $2.4 billion, and the Senate's capital budget is intended recognize the necessity and fix what we have.

Mr. Skunk, can you provide a little bit of background on the Stratton Library? Yep, Mr. Chairman, the Stratton Library is in— it's located in Sitka. It was a library to the Sheldon Jackson College that is no longer— that is closed, but that's where the library was. DEED, Department of Education, acquired that library and pretty much sat empty.

There's no plan from DEED on that. And the judiciary started probably, I want to say, 6 years ago. So the judiciary started looking at that as a replacement for a courthouse because the current courthouse in Sitka is in such horrible condition that eventually the state needs to have a new courthouse there and they feel that long-term this is a much more cost-effective way for a new courthouse in Sitka. Representative Galvin. Thank you, Co-Chair Schragg.

Through the chair, would the $2 million go toward actually getting it done? Or what is that— what is the idea for that to go to only a design? Or if you would share with us what that $2 million is expected to do. Mr. Scott. Through the chair, Representative Galvin, the $2 million is solely to purchase— judiciary will purchase the Stratton Library from the Department of Education.

There's prior funding, prior funding and I don't know the exact year, within 6 years there has been prior funding for engineering and design for that building. Once judiciary has it, they could— now they could use that prior funding.

Thank you. And one more follow-up, if I may. I missed what allocation this one was, this particular— where is this funding coming from at the bottom here? Well, where would I find it, I guess, in the bill? And then I can probably figure it out for myself.

Mr. Scott? Yeah, that's one I didn't mark down. It's, uh, 23. No, that's page 23. Mr. Scott, uh, I'm getting a lifeline.

Page 23, it sounds like. Through the— Mr. Chairman? Yep.

Very good. And that's the only item on page 23 for members that are looking. Representative Gallant, additional follow-up here. Thank you. So I see this is coming from general funds.

So I'm— so we would be using general funds to buy the library from the Department of Education.

That begs the question, was there other consideration that we wouldn't need general funds but instead we would— I know we've had transfers in the past that wouldn't require us to pull from our general fund. So why is it that we need to pull from our general fund to make this happen? Mr. Scott. Through the chair, Representative Galvin, very good question. It's a very long, drawn-out process that have been involved in this project for quite a while.

We have tried that lane, we have tried going down that path, and I also recognize your confusion because we're really taking $2 million from one pocket and to stick it into the other, and there's nothing in any budget right now, there's nothing in any budget that states how Department of Education gets— has to or gets to spend that $2 million.

So your confusion is correct. We have tried to go down a transfer— we have tried to go down that route. It has been very unsuccessful. Follow-up, if I may? Yes, follow-up.

So what I recall for other transactions— and mind you, I am relatively new to this, but I would welcome other comments from those who have been at the table longer. Is there have been things like transport of land to— for the city of Whittier from the state of Alaska. It required a bill, but it got done. And maybe that was it, that it's— we're trying to avoid a bill. I really don't know.

But I, I look forward to us understanding this better because I think the general public will be saying, wait, we've got so much going on.

Unless those $2 million are going to help our kids get smaller classes, my head is dizzy about it. I look forward to learning more. Thank you. I believe I saw a hand from Kocher Josephson. I see Rep. Hannon, other hands.

Kocher Josephson. Thank you, Mr. Kocher. I would yield to Representative Hannon if it is on this subject. I think it is. Representative Hannon.

Thank you, Kocher Schwaggy. I guess I would, at the risk of teaching it too simply, you know, our departments frequently, many of us saw as you work through budgets where we are paying DOT or Department of Administration for rent for another state department. I believe that in essence this isn't UGF money that is going to go out formally, that it's a bookkeeping. So it's got to show, because the property is owned by DEED and it's being transferred to a different department, and in this case a different branch, so not just department to department transfer but branch to branch. But that DEED is not going to have the authorization for $2 million in cash to walk around and spend however they want.

It would still have to be appropriated from us, but it's going to show in their budget as an income as opposed to a deficit in the next fiscal year if this is completed in the capital budget. And we would still have to authorize, but once that is received by DEED, it doesn't mean that we allocate it to DEED. We can still in the next year allocate it— appropriate it however we want. But that money is a paper transfer. It's not actually going to leave the state assets.

And I think, you know, this is one of those OMB kind of nightmares of keeping the lane straight of where the money is received from and what it goes to is another step entirely in the next appropriation process. If I may ask a follow-up. Yes, Representative Galvin. Thank you very much, Representative Hannan. It begs the question for me, Well, if that's the case, then why wouldn't it be sale of $1?

I've seen that happen in the past where if we're just dealing with the property transfer issue and if we need it on paper, I mean, you see where I'm getting. So if I could ask then, how did we come up with the number $2 million? Mr. Scott. Through the Chair, Representative Galvin, in last year's capital budget, There was a language section. We directed the judiciary and deed to negotiate a sale price and come back to us and ask us for an appropriation to do the sale.

Thank you. Representative— staff on this? Not on this? Co-chair Josephson? Yes, Mr.

Scott, on page 22 at line 16, it says allocation West Susitna Access Road, $94.9 million, Stage 2. Is that— can you tell me what that is? Mr. Scott. Through the Chair, Representative Josephson.

That is the federalization of the West Susitna Access Road. They're federalizing it and putting on the STIP so that it can now accept federal funds. Follow-up? Follow-up? Is this—.

Are you tracking? Is this— I've flown over the area, all of it, last summer, so I know the area a bit. Is this to complete the road, to your understanding, Essentially to the river from the built zone, I think Goose Bay, Kinnick Goose Bay area, west to the river but not beyond the river. Is that roughly correct? Mr. Scott?

Through the chair, Rep. Josephson, that is my understanding. I would like to get the most up-to-date information for you though. Okay. Which is available. New question?

You have a new question? Page 6, lines 8 and 9, wildlife management research and hunting access.

Is—. What is your understanding of that item, Mr. Scott?

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Page 6, line 8, was it, Rep. Poacher-Justin? Very good. It's through the Chair, Representative Josephson, it's my understanding that that is the Pittman— Pittman-Robinson. I believe it's Pittman-Robinson, not Dingle-Johnson.

I believe it's the Pittman-Robinson funding that we do not— the legislature has— hasn't, uh, reached down and allocated that out and picked those little boat ramps. Like, you're going to build one here, you're going to build one here. We haven't done that. We leave that to DNR to choose those projects. Okay, good enough.

Thank you. Representative Staff. Yeah, I think, Co-Chair, uh, through the chair, shifting gears here, uh, page 32, lines 30, NPRA money. So we are looking—. You are—.

The number we are using in this year capital budget is $32.4 million for the NPRA money. Obviously that's, uh, substantially more than what's in the RSB, and I know there's a big big lease sales, quite a banger lease sale actually. So I'm curious where you get this number from, $32.4 million. Mr. Scott, through—. Thank you— through the chair, Representative Stapp, that, that number increased because we also included FY27 in the spending to, uh, to match up with the wording in the operating budget.

And so when added the extra year, we went from $17 million to $32— I believe $32.4 million. And that number is an estimate from Legislative Finance. Okay, thanks. On that question, Coach Josephson. On that question, Mr. Scott, and I don't know if this is an operating item or right here, but as to the direct impact aid from the NPRA, does this budget Is it consistent with, I think, the majority of both chambers' position that Congress did not change the formula and how it's distributed?

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Co-Chair Josephson. You are correct. Nothing has changed.

This is the way we have always approached NPR language in the past. We did not think that Congress changed the way the state can use that revenue. Thank you, sir. Mr. Scott, we're at our scheduled stop time, but I know that at least one member or two has an additional question. Are you able to go over for a few minutes?

Of course. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Representative Stapp. Yeah, thank you, Chair Schragger.

Just real quick, do we have a list of the amount of these community impact projects, total amount of value? Mr. Scott? So through the chair, Representative Stapp, I don't believe we have the projects that are going to be funded this year, but we do in history. We could go back and see all those. So I don't have what they're going to spend it on.

Thanks. Representative Moore. Thank you. I, Mr. Scott, I have more of a clarification question on page 18, line 19, Montana Creek Bridge, and it says it's, um, being allocated to House District 3. Is, is there a second Montana Creek Bridge and that's in House District 3, or is that for House District 30?

Through the chair, uh, Representative Moore, there is a Montana Creek out, out, out the road here. Okay, great. Thank you. It's where the gun range is. That's on R. Okay, wonderful.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Any additional questions? I'm not seeing any. Uh, with that, that concludes our business for this morning.

Our next committee meeting is at 1:30 PM this afternoon. Mr. Scott, thank you again for your presentation this morning. Uh, with that, we are adjourned at 10 AM.