HFIN-260508-0900

ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ� ទ្ទ្ទ្ ទ្ទ្ទ្ ទ្ទ្ទ្ ស្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រ ប្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រ ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

I call this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order. Let the record reflect that it is 9:11 a.m. on Friday, May 8th, 2026. Present today we have Representatives Bynum, Stapp, Moore, Representatives Hannon, Tomaszewski, Galvin, Jimmy, Co-Chair Foster, Co-Chair Josephson, and myself, Co-Chair Schrag. If committee members could please make sure that their cell phones are on silent, I would be grateful. Present today to help us with our committee work is our committee assistant Helen Phillips, secretaries Bree Wiley and Leah Fraser, Paige Tallulah-Lestovka, and our LIO moderator Emily Mesh.

Thank you for all that you do for us. Before we begin, I'd like to— oh, I've already asked for us to silence cell phones. Excuse me. Today we will take up amendments to Senate Bill 214, the capital budget. If we have time, we will also take up Senate Bill 23, civics education.

Moving on to Senate Bill 214, we do have 13 amendments. Those should be in your packets. I'll begin by moving Amendment Number 1. I move Amendment Number 1. Objection.

And we've got an objection. Amendment Number 1 is what is known as the capital fiscal note packet. It adds contingent appropriations tied to various bills that have associated capital fiscal notes. These funds only take effect if the underlying bill or provisions pass the legislature and become law. These bills were identified in coordination with Legislative Finance Division and the other body.

The first contingent fiscal note is related to HB 193, Paid Parental Leave, or a substantially similar piece of legislation, and would appropriate $2 million to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development for IT system upgrades. The second is related to SB 24, the nicotine e-cigarette tax, which if passed would be $250,000 appropriated to the Department of Revenue to update the tax revenue. Management system. Finally, the third is a $500,000 appropriation to the Department of Revenue if a revenue bill separate from SB 24 is passed into law and requires the department to modify their tax revenue management system. With that, I know we have an objection.

Are there questions or discussion from committee members on Amendment Number 1? Representative Stapp. Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair. I mean, clearly I don't like those bills, so I'm going to be a no on the amendment. I do have one question.

The $500,000 though for the— is that for the paid parental leave technology updates? Just curious. I thought that was included in the bill fiscal note itself. That was my only question. Yeah, let's have legislative finance come to the table if we could.

Director Painter, are you able to address the question from Representative Stepp? For the record, Alexi Painter, Legislative Finance Division. So through the chair, Representative Stepp, that could apply to a number of tax bills. There's a number of tax bills that have very similar fiscal notes of that amount. For TRIMS updates.

So it's not related to the parental leave bill. It could be any number of different tax bills that have identical fiscal notes. Follow-up? So what is it— follow-up to the chair, to Director Pinner. So what about the vape tax bill?

That's also there. Is that same thing? Because I figured we just reconcile fiscal notes on bills. Director Painter. Through the chair, Representative Stepp.

So that one has a smaller fiscal note than the other updates. I guess it must be a smaller update from the Department of Revenue. So that bill is separate than the others because they don't need the full $500,000. But with several other tax bills, they have that same $500,000 number. So if it's, you know, the smaller one, then they'd only get the $250,000.

But if another bill passed that would need the higher amount, then that would—. Okay, makes sense. Thanks. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Schraggi.

Through the Chair, Director Painter, thank you for being here. Just a fundamental process question. So these are being added in the event that this legislation actually passes. If this amendment were to fail and the underlying or the bills were to pass into law, functionally what kind of an issue would there be for the budgets? Related to those bills?

Through the chair, Representative Bynum. So since these are capital notes and the operating bill doesn't have capital in the title, most fiscal notes get added to the operating bill by the conference committee, but they couldn't add these as capital items. So likely the work would get delayed. We've seen that before when fiscal notes are not adopted by the legislature because of various things. Oftentimes the work can't get done and the actual rollout of the program gets delayed.

Appreciate that. Okay, very good. Any additional questions or comments from committee members? Representative Bynum. Thank you, Kuchesharagi, to say for this amendment I appreciate.

The position that my friend from Fairbanks is in with the discussion on the bills themselves. I think the bills themselves will stand on whether they pass or fail into law. I will support the amendment because it's a functional mechanism that would be necessary if the bills pass it to pass into law. Representative Stamp, do you maintain your objection? I'll move it along.

I'll withdraw it. Okay. With the objection withdrawn, is there any additional objection from committee members? Seeing none, Amendment 1 has been adopted. That brings us to Amendment 2.

Representative Allard, are you online with us?

I'm sorry, is that Representative Sharkey? Yes. Yes, I'm online. Very good. Representative Allard, would you like to move your Amendment 2?

Yes, I don't have it in front of me, so I apologize. I have— I thought I had several amendments. Is this my cemetery amendment? Uh, that's correct. This is a grant to municipality for the purchase.

Yes, thank you. I move amendment number 2, please. I'll object for the purpose of discussion. Representative Allard.

Thank you. Amendment 2 is for a cemetery that would be located in Eagle River, right across from the high school. This cemetery is important. Just a few days ago, I found out that there was a woman who passed away in Anchorage. She was a grandma and her family had to move her and was not able to bury her in Anchorage because we no longer have any cemetery plots left.

So we don't have plots available in Anchorage at all. There's no burial plots that are located in Eagle River and Chugiak either. The only plots that are available are people that might already have plots that they bought and there are some plots that are available for people that belong with like the BSW or they're members of the elk. So I hope that I'll answer any questions that anybody may have. Now, by the way, it's only a one-time funding.

The land that we have is already going to be donated to us and it would cost $1. So the cemetery would be formed in Eagle River and everybody can have it. All right, very good discussion from committee members or questions.

Representative Moore. Yes, thank you, Co-Chair Zarghi. I am going to be in support of this amendment due to the lack of cemetery space in Eagle River. These these residents that are passing away in the muni aren't being— having their loved ones are having to bury them in the Valley is the closest space. And so in Palmer, and I think it's, it's really important that we try to remedy this.

So I will be in support of this amendment. Thank you. OK. Representative Galvin, why? Thank you. I appreciate the maker of this amendment.

I want to thank you so much for your intent here. I have not heard from anyone in the municipality about this need, and if it is true, then I certainly hope that we jump on a supplemental if, if we are in this situation. And I will work with you, Representative, to learn more. But because it's new to me and I haven't heard from any constituents about it, I will be a reluctant no vote. Thank you.

Representative Ballard, you mentioned that the land had been donated already, but I see here in the amendment explanation it says this is for the purchase of land to operate as a cemetery and that the land is already approved for sale. Can you please clarify?

The status of the land? Thank you. So thank you. The municipality of Anchorage— we've actually been working on this for a little over 10 years in the municipality Anchorage with the Health Land Trust, they were going to give us the land for a dollar, so that was designated for it. And as far as not knowing the, um, I'll just wait until I can respond.

But yes, that land would be ours. And then I've also been working with the governor that there might be a way we can get land from the state as well to expand for our military veterans. This has been an issue in the municipality for quite some time, so the land is super important. As we tried to bond the $10 million for it, the voters voted it down, rightfully so. So the land coming is a dollar and no cost to the public is a good starting point for us.

Thank you, Representative Ballard, for that. And so then what would the $850,000 be for?

The land is only a dollar. So I don't— I apologize, I'm having a hard time hearing, so I apologize. I can restate the question that the amendment is for $850,000, but I'm hearing that the land is $1. Can you explain what the $850,000 is for? Oh, the $150,000.

Your representative, Allard, your amendment is for $850,000. Can you explain what that money is for? Oh yeah, the, the $850,000 is to establish it. So you can't just go in and bury people. So they have to clear the land, check the land, clean the land, and they have to be able to do a one-time, make it a cemetery.

So whether that's signs and that's getting individuals in that can engineer and just lay out the property and make sure that all the plots are in the proper areas. So it's going to be part of the design factor and get it up and running for individuals. Okay. Representative Galvin. Thank you, Co-Chair Schrag.

Through the chair, I— Representative Allard, the $850 UGF, is that one-time funding that you have on here? And did you get estimates for the various costs, and would they be ongoing, or is it one time? As I see that it says just UGF. Representative Allard. Thank you for— Okay, sorry about that.

Thank you, Representative Galvin. That's a great question. It is a one-time fee, and the reason why is Um, Chugiak/Eagle River has their own Parks and Rec, so it would be streaming in with revenue that way, and the mill rate would probably just stay the same, and it would actually generate its own funds. So it would actually be a self-paying cemetery. So anything that— when persons come in to buy that plot, they're going to go ahead and run it that way.

So there's not ever going to be needing funding again. And I would say that we actually needed a little bit more, but we think we can get donations and grants from the other areas, so we lowered it to $850,000. Okay. All right. Thank you very much, Representative Allard.

I don't see any additional questions. I'm going to maintain my objection as I still have questions about the project. I do support the need for the cemetery, but I do still have some questions based on the discussion today and would note we've had some challenges getting this through the administration in years past. But, oh, any wrap-up? I should give you the opportunity, Representative Allard.

Any wrap-up on the amendment before we go to a vote? I would, I would like to say that I've already spoken to the governor and I've already spoken to the state. I sat on the assembly for 3 years. This is a dire need. We really do not have anywhere to bury our people.

You're either going to be cremated or you're going to have to go out of the municipality to be buried. We don't have time to wait anymore. I brought this amendment up back in 33rd legislature— or not this amendment, yes, this amendment back up in 33rd legislature, and for whatever reason they didn't understand the importance of it, and it was passed, and the bodies both passed it. This is very, very important, and I would just ask you, put it in there. Let's have the conversation.

Let's get this funded so people don't have to be shipped. If you die tomorrow, any of you committee members, you're either a veteran and you can be buried at Fort Richardson, but you're not going to be buried in the municipality of Anchorage unless you have a plot that is already reserved. I encourage you, please Vote yes for this amendment. Thank you, Representative Schrag. Thank you, Representative Allard.

All right, I will maintain my objection and ask the clerk to please call the roll. Representative Galvin? No. Representative Allard?

Yes. Representative Stapp? Yes. Representative Hannan? No.

Representative Jimmy? No. Representative Bynum? Yes. Representative Tomaszewski?

Yes. Representative Moore? Yes. Representative Foster? No.

Representative Josephson? No. Representative Schraggi? No. 5 Yea, 6 nay.

And on a vote of 5 yea, 6 nay, Amendment Number 2 fails. That brings us to Amendment Number 3 by Representative Moore. Representative Moore? I move Amendment Number 3. No objection for the purposes of discussion.

Representative Moore? Thank you, Coach. Amendment number 3 is an add for the Alaska Addiction Rehabilitation Service. They are in the process of adding a 14,000-square-foot gymnasium and a community center to the existing campus. This will provide clients with access to exercise and recreation as part of the recovery process.

And this will sub— I mean, this will serve as a hub for a large Alcoholics Anonymous and a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and recovery-oriented place for events. This is phase 3 of a long process for Alaska Addiction Rehabilitation Services in the Valley, and this is a partial ask for, for phase 3. This is not a full ask, so we just figured we'd start somewhere, and I hope we can have some support. Okay, thank you, Representative Moore. Discussion from committee members?

All right, Representative Galvin. Thank you. I'll just I just want to say thank you for putting this forward, and I have been tracking what we've been watching with the Mental Health Trust Authority. There's been a lot of good work. There needs to be more.

I will be a very reluctant no vote because, you know, I'm going— I'm going to have to go home and face families who are losing their vision of education more than ever, with higher classes than ever, with losses of whatever brings them to that school. Frankly, for a lot of them, it's sports, it's their music, and those things are all getting slashed. And so I really, truly am a rough No, because I know this is important too, but I'm— it's going to be— it's just one of those years. And I'm not— I'm going to only say that for this one amendment. But I just especially want to thank you because I see you have your eyes on what could be very beneficial for helping these folks kind of lift themselves into a better place.

So thank you for that. Thank you, Representative Galvin. I will echo your comments. I appreciate the amendment and the work that Alaska Addiction Rehabilitation Services is doing. Met with them a number of times and do believe that they're doing very good work.

However, in our constrained environment and where we are today, and knowing that they are working to pursue other funding sources, it's not at this time for me. But I do very much appreciate the work that they do, and it's very difficult for me to vote no on this, but I am going to be a no on this today. Representative Tomaszewski. Yeah, thank you. I'm going to speak in support of this amendment.

You know, Anchorage and the, in the area, South Central down there, seeing a tremendous amount of homelessness and homeless camps and mental illness. And anything that can be done to help that problem in Anchorage where we see these people crossing the streets and getting hit by cars and the homeless camps and the fires that they start, anything to help this is going to be a great thing for Anchorage and the area. And so, Representative Moore, thank you for bringing this forward. Representative Stout. Yeah, thank you, good chairman.

I support my member from here, from the Valley. I think it's a good idea. Obviously, I echo the comments from the member from Fairbanks regarding kind of all the issues with that. And yeah, I thought that this body had put a substantial amount of money in for education funding again in our version of the budget. So hopefully, if that were to hold, those things won't come to fruition that the member from Anchorage was talking about.

Ask the members to vote yes. Additional discussion from committee members? Not seeing any, I'm going to maintain my objection and ask the clerk to call the roll. I'd note that Representative Allard is no longer online, I've been told. Representative Hannan?

No.

Representative Tomaszewski? Yes. Representative Moore? Yes.

Representative Stapp? Yes. Representative Galvin? No. Representative Jimmy?

No. Representative Bynum? Yes. Representative Foster? No.

Representative Josephson? No. Representative Schraggy? No. 4 Yay, 6 nay.

And on a vote of 4 yay, 6 nay, Amendment Number 3 fails to be adopted. That brings us to Amendment Number 4 by Representative Moore. I move amendment number 4. I'll object for the purposes of discussion. Representative Moore.

Thank you. Amendment number 4 is another partial add for a project in the valley. It's called the Wonderland Project. It is a youth-centered behavioral health facility in the Mat-Su Valley that will expand Denali Family Services' capacity to deliver trauma-informed, culturally responsive care to Alaska youth. This is a capital investment that will strengthen the state to foster very at-risk youth.

And so this is going to be developing a new 19,000-square-foot behavioral and health service facility in the Matsu that will be open to all of Alaska's youth. And I hope that we can have some support for this partial funding. Okay. Additional committee discussion?

Not seeing any. I'll just say that I Echo the comments on the prior amendment. I really appreciate where this comes from and what we're trying to do. I hope that we are able in the future to find funding for this project. I think that's— Representative Josephson, please.

Consistent with your comments, Co-Chairman Schrag, while we're positioned better than we were on February 28th for the oddity of the war that I certainly didn't see coming.

The— most of the resources are subscribed. So— and that's partly evidenced by any waterfall. I mean, it strikes me that if you're into a waterfall, you're into a guessing game about resources sort of definitionally. And I think this is a great amendment. It's just that I don't have my eyes on additional dollars to pay for it.

So unfortunately, I'm in a nay position.

And before I go to the sponsor for wrap-up, Emily Mescher, is Representative Allard back online? She is. Okay, very good. Thank you. Representative Moore, would you like wrap-up on this amendment?

No, I appreciate the comments. Comments from everybody, and I understand where, where we're at. These are just very important, really important work for our youth, and we have a real issue in Alaska, and I think that's not lost on any of us sitting at these tables. So thank you for your comments. Thank you, Representative Moore.

All right, I will maintain my objection and ask the clerk to please call the roll. Representative Tomaszewski? Yes. Representative Hannon? No.

Representative Bynum? Yes. Representative Moore? Yes. Representative Galvin?

No. Representative Jimmy? No. Representative Allard?

Yes. Representative Stapp? Yes. Representative Foster? No.

Representative Josephson? No. Representative Schraggy, no. 5 Yea, 6 nay. And on a vote of 5 yea, 6 nay, Amendment Number 4 is not adopted.

That brings us to Amendment Number 5 from Representative Moore. Representative Moore. Alright, this is my last one, I promise. Amendment Number 5, I will move, please. And I'll object for the purposes of discussion.

Representative Moore. OK, this is a very familiar one for everybody here at the table. This is the Palmer Courthouse expansion. Expansion. This is an ad, a big one.

The Plummer Courthouse serves the region with 10 judicial offices using 8 courtrooms. All courtrooms are in use throughout the day, and this court has had the highest number of Superior Court filings per Superior Court judge in the state for the last 5 years. I do understand that we just, um, we were working to obtain another judge. I think that an expansion would help. I think anywhere we can, we can be fighting for this courthouse, we will try.

So that is why we are here today with this amendment and for this ask, and I hope that there's some support for it. Yeah, Representative Moore, I will say for my part, there's a consistent theme with your amendments, which is that I don't like them because they're so hard to vote no against. I personally have been out to the Palmer Courthouse. In fact, it's where we had our marriage certificate my wife and I approved. And there is a very real need out in Palmer for this courthouse.

I, for me, my opposition will solely be a financial one, but there's certainly no lack of need out there for this courthouse, and I would be very happy if we were to find a way to fund this in the near future. So With that, Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Schrag. I support the amendment as written. I know that the courthouse— a lot of folks refer to this as the Palmer Courthouse, but this is a number one top priority for the court system.

So I consider this a statewide item, would be first on the list for the courts. So I will support the amendment, but I would ask the co-chair Is there any appetite if we were to reduce this amount to set some level of funding aside in the capital budget so that we can start building on a way to get to a success on this? And if there were, then I would make a conceptual amendment, but if there's not, then we'll just stand with the amendment as it is. Yeah, for— thank you for the question, Representative Bynum, and appreciate you trying to find a way to make this work. We have been working very closely with the other body to try and make sure that we're addressing deferred maintenance to the maximum extent possible.

And I think that this would be problematic. I'm open to continuing the discussion both with yourself and with the other body to see if there is some pathway for this. But at this time, I'm going to be a no on this amendment. Thank you. Representative Hannan.

Thank you. Just my recollection, Chair Schrag, was a couple of years ago there was some phase 1 money put in the budget for planning, and I can't recollect if that was vetoed or whether the original capital appropriation for the planning for the expansion of the Palmer Courthouse made it through. Maybe Amazon Alexa— Alexi can answer that or have a specific recollection of that. I think it's in the description. Yeah, very good.

Representative Hannan, I'd point you to the explanation on the amendment. I believe it points to that. My recollection is that they had received funding. In fact, yes, if you go to the very bottom of paragraph 1, the Alaska court system received funding to complete the conceptual design and.

FY23 and received a total of $7.2 million in FY25 for full design work, site work, permitting, and utility infrastructure. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you to the members for allowing us to avoid bringing the director up here. All right, with that, is there any further committee discussion? I'll go to wrap up.

Representative Moore? No, thank you. Okay, I'll maintain my— excuse me, I can't talk this morning, have not had enough coffee clearly. Maintain my objection, ask I ask the clerk to please call the roll. Representative Moore?

Yes. Representative Galvin? No. Representative Stapp? Yes.

Representative Hannan? No. Representative Allard?

Yes. Representative Jimmy? No. Representative Tomaszewski? Yes.

Representative Bynum? Yes. Representative Foster? No. Representative Josephson?

No. Representative Schraggi? No. 5 Yea, 6 nay. And on a vote of 5 yea, 6 nay, Amendment Number 5 is not adopted.

That brings us to Amendment Number 6. Representative Tomaszewski? Thank you, Co-Chair Schraggi. I move Amendment 6. I'll object for the purposes of discussion.

Representative Tomaszewski? Thank you. So this is a familiar topic, Arctic Winter Games. They have requested funding for the 2028 Arctic Winter Games in Fairbanks. This is an event that may not take place if we don't get them funding.

It was originally slated for another destination that can no longer support the games, and so it's coming back to Alaska. If we can make this happen. So we've already put in $500,000 into that funding. It is a grant to the municipality of the Fairbanks North Star Borough for planning and support. And this would be a good thing for the state, especially in a time now that with international tensions that we see, this brings the member countries together, the youth, the, the camaraderie.

We saw testifiers come. We've seen the students themselves come and the parents come and, and give really great testimony on how good this organization is and what it means for our state and the international community that takes place, that takes part in it. So I'd be happy to answer any questions and hope you support this amendment. All right. Thank you, Representative Galvin.

Thank you, Co-Chair Schraggi. I very much appreciate the Arctic Winter Games. The testimony was provocative. They talked about how this is far more than sports for over 2,000 people, 2,000 Alaskans, that is. And so I do want to make mention of how important I think this is.

I do I recognize that we already have funds in, as it states in this explanation. I have two questions. One is, my understanding was that we weren't told a specific number by the committee that was needed. I don't know how much is currently in their fund already. Would be good to know what that is.

And also, is there— are there matching funds that Fairbanks community is putting in as well? I'm just curious to know about that, a little more context if we could down the line. That would help. Representative Stem. Yeah, I mean, I can answer some of those, uh, koochosh ragi, uh, through the chair to Representative Galvin.

I mean, look, last time the Arctic Winter Games was in Fairbanks, we had a massive community effort led by the illustrious Shree Sole, who headed up our industrial, our Arctic Winter Games effort. If you go to Fairbanks and you go to the Carlson Center, you will see a massive monument with the bunch of plaques of all the local donors who helped raise money. And they're big names from the Binkleys to the Biblamores to the Cernys. So very confident that if Arctic Winter Games were to be able to be held in Fairbanks again, you would see a very robust community support because that's what we like to do in Fairbanks, is help out these things. Additional discussion from committee members?

Go ahead, Representative. Again, if we could find out how much the committee already has. And how much is needed in order to lock in the games? If that's available information, I think that would be helpful. And Representative Ballard, I hear you attempting to get in the queue.

Would you like to speak next? Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair. I appreciate it. I believe that they have about $250,000 right now, and it was given to them, I believe, through the chamber. It's really important that they can prove to the International Committee that they do have the funds to go through with this.

So I don't know if people know, but John Rada leads the International Committee. He is the president, and he lives right here in Eagle River. And I think that's amazing to say that we actually have the international president for the entire Arctic Winter Games, and he is a resident of the state of Alaska. So even though they came back and they said, well, we'll, we'll deal with the $500,000— after speaking to the individuals that said that, they thought that that was the best move because they were scared they weren't going to get anything. I told them that they needed to come out of the chute and ask for the whole amount, and that's why we brought the amendment forward.

You're talking about 2,000 kids in the entire state of Alaska. You're talking about children who live in rural communities that don't have anything else going as far as sports and athletics. You're talking about kids who live in Talkeetna and Natchukett and Kenai. All these kids are important to society and to our— their mental health. We always hear about mental health.

If you take this away from them and they don't have the support to do this, it's not going to go over well with them. We need to very— we need to support our children. Um, thank you, Representative Shaggy. Thank you, Representative Ballard. Representative Stout.

I have the complete and total breakdown. I could read it if the member from Anchorage would like me to, through the chair. That's okay. I think Jamie—. Okay.

Yeah. All right. Thank you. I'll say for myself, we have worked hard with the Arctic Winter Games Committee and the Fairbanks North Star Borough to try and find an amount that works within the limitations of our budgetary circumstances to provide them the necessary funds to be able to start up have the necessary infrastructure to get on this way. In communications with them, and I believe we have letters of support from the Fairbanks North Star Borough as well as some communications from the Arctic Winter Games Committee that indicate that the $500,000 will allow them to get off the ground this— excuse me, ground this year and continue to pursue this.

So very much a supporter of the Arctic Winter Games. We are in a limited revenue environment where we cannot do all things. And for this time, I'm going to be opposing this amendment. Additional discussion from committee members before I go to wrap up from Representative Tomaszewski. Rep Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Co-Chair Schrag. So yeah, there are many donors and many folks, businesses that come alongside the Arctic Winter Games and donate to this really good cause. You know, we don't want to let this opportunity slip for the games. We don't want it to go to a 3-year cycle. As it may happen, if we don't acquire the funds to make this happen in 2028, you know, a 3-year cycle for a high school student basically is going to be, well, you're not gonna be able to participate.

So we're gonna see a lot of students that may lose that opportunity, and we don't want that to happen. And so I would appreciate, voting in support of this amendment. It's a good cause. It's great for the state of Alaska. It's great for our international partners who provide the competition for this.

And we should make a real valiant effort into funding this organization. So I appreciate your support. Thank you, Representative Tomaszewski. I'll maintain my objection and ask the clerk to please call the roll. Representative Hannon.

No. Representative Tomaszewski? Yes. Representative Moore? Yes.

Representative Allard? Yes. Representative Stapp? Yes. Representative Gelvin?

No. Representative Jimmy? No. Representative Bynum? Yes.

Representative Foster? No. Representative Josephson? No. Representative Schraggy?

No. 5 Yay, 6 nay. On a vote of 5 yay, 6 nay, Amendment 6 is not adopted. That brings us to Amendment 7. 7.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Schrag. I move Amendment 7. I'll object for the purposes of discussion. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-Chair Schrag. As I, as I had talked about during the operating budget, specifically about the use of fund sources related to ADA, I am bringing this forward as a similar discussion. This amendment changes the appropriation to fund source code 1140 in order to help ensure that the project remains eligible for funding while preserving the financial integrity of ADA and maintain investor confidence. Avoiding ad hoc draws from ADA funds helps ensure investors, bond buyers, and financial partners— it assures them that ADA assets remain available to support the authority's contractual.

Obligations and long-term financial commitments. Existing statute grants the ADA Board the direct ability and direction to determine the dividend, exempts ADA assets and funds from the Executive Budget Act, and provides ADA funds to not be classified as state funds subject to appropriation. Article 2, Section 13 of Alaska Constitution provides that the appropriate— provides that appropriation bills shall be confined to appropriations. This amendment maintains consistent consistency with existing law and longstanding precedent to avoid the use of the appropriations process in a manner that could be interpreted as overriding statutory authority or establishing financial structures. So But with that being said, and having many conversations with the co-chairs in both bodies, and with consideration of the status of the operating budget, I withdraw Amendment 7.

Amendment 7 has been withdrawn. That brings us to Amendment 8. Amendment 8 is by Representative Stapp. Representative Stapp. Thank you, Chair.

I move Amendment 8. I'll object for the purposes of discussion. Thank you, Chair Schoraghi and members of the committee. Amendment 8 basically restores the federal seat authority for the West Sioux Access Road. Obviously, this amendment is co-sponsored by everyone.

One of the members of our House Republican minority at this table. And the reason is, is because we strongly believe and advocate for access and development in the state of Alaska. And the West Sioux is one of the most promising regions of the state that could potentially open up for local, statewide, and recreation and development. So this is a critical step in moving Alaska forward and putting us on a pathway to the right direction. And I just hope that the folks in the committee understand that there are very few things that we have taken action on in the last 2 years that would literally look to further develop the lifeblood of Alaska, which is resource development.

The West Sioux Access Road is one of them. And given the fact that it's primarily federal receipt authority and our 9-to-1 match to the STIP, that would be a shame if we weren't able to utilize that resource. So ask the members to vote yes, and I'll wait for questions. All right, thank you, Representative Staff. Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, co-chair. Shruggie. I rise obviously in support of this amendment. You know, the West Sioux Access Road has, has been— the plan has been going for more than 49, 49 years.

There's presently no access to that public land owned by the state, either for the public or resource development. We have a federal match to build access, that state land, and we need to use that opportunity. We had groups of people run through this building telling us to meet the match.

This is that match, and we need to utilize it while we have the chance to do that. And so putting this back in is very important for this state. And when's the last time we built a major road in the state of Alaska? Can anyone answer that question? I'm not sure.

So let's meet this match and let's, let's make this happen. Thank you. And I just want to clarify for committee members and the public that having the West Susitna Access Road out of the STIP does not reduce the amount of federal funds available to the state. For which we could apply for that 9-to-1 match, because I do very strongly believe in that 9-to-1 match. I think that's a very important benefit to the state of Alaska, very unique to the state of Alaska.

And we would not want to miss those opportunities. As previously discussed, when we adopted our committee substitute, there is more federal receipt authority in the STIP than there are federal funds to be received. And so by reducing some of that authority, it just eliminates one of the— one of the places where those federal funds could be expended. But there are still many other places many other STIP projects that can expend those federal funds. And so the amount of federal dollars is not changed regardless of whether the West Susitna Access Road STIP project is in or out of the STIP.

But with that, I know that Representative Galvin wanted to get in the queue. Representative Galvin. Well, thank you. I very much appreciate that clarification. I think it's really important because my constituents have said over and over and over again What am I doing about my district having the highest road fatalities in the entire state?

And by the way, those are happening on state roads. So to your point, there are many other projects in the STIP. I'm hoping that the Department of Transportation might choose some roads where Alaskans are currently using roads and using them a lot. And making sure that if there are some modifications that can be made so that there could be safe travel and also ensure that we have transportation that is working well so that our industry, whether they're truckers or anything else, can be using those roads in a safe way. I think that's important.

What I also heard from constituents is there were concerns around critical fish and wildlife habitat and recreation-based industries. They want to make sure to sustain those local economies, and there were some concerns around that. They're also— I think Alaskans were told that this will improve public access and design, and the intent of the road will, you know, cater primarily to some industrial users. It perhaps likely, if it is as planned, may end up being even one not used by the tourism and groups like that. So I do appreciate the concerns.

I certainly don't want to stop economic development. That's important, but it's also important to look at other opportunities. So I will be a no vote on this amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Galvin.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Schrag. I will be voting yes for this amendment. This is part of the STIP. We are not adding this to our program in the state.

This is already part of our program from the state. The item was removed from the capital budget for federal receipt uses. And as far as environmental concerns that may be surrounding this topic, obviously nothing is going to get built until it goes through the appropriate processes and environmental review. I do believe that this is an important part of our resource development. Although this is 800 miles northwest of Ketchikan, I do believe it is an important part of Alaska's development process and opportunity.

So I will be supporting the amendment. Representative Allard.

Thank you, Representative Schrage. I'm going to ask if it's possible, if Don Peony, he's from the Alaska DOT, if he could please make some comments about the West Susena access, please. With his opinion. He's on the line right now. Oh, we can go to Mr. Don Pannon.

Yes, we can. Uh, Dom, uh, excuse me, Director Pannon, are you online?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm on the line. You've been asked if you'd like to make comments.

Absolutely. For the record, Don Pannon, Director of Program Management and Administration for the department. I'd like to convey that when you look at the statutory purpose of our department, this, this is a project that certainly checks every single box on that, on that statement. This, this project currently has over $7 million already expended. We have a 2025 appropriation.

The project is currently in our STIP, so removing the project certainly does introduce some risks. Some of the risks include federal payback or additional delays or project increases over time. One thing I will say is this project in our STIP, we have over the last several decades had additional programming in our STIP more than the federal funds. That programming allows us to do advanced construction. And take advantage of August redistribution funds as well.

So having, having additional projects in our STIP beyond federal revenue is not necessarily an issue. Also, removing this project does, um, you know, remove— add additional risks beyond just the project itself. This project will provide access to recreational lands, area plans, land zoned for housing. Land zone for recreation, and it does provide additional access to the Susitna River through the boat launch. So I just wanted to convey the additional information to the committee and available for any questions.

Okay, additional discussion from committee members?

Not seeing any. Uh, Representative Jimmy. Thank you, Co-Chair. Um, I do not like to stand in the way of progressing Alaska and it developing anywhere.

I cannot support this amendment because I've talked to tribes and, and there are burial sites, sacred sites that are along this area, and I will not be supporting this. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Representative Jimmie. With that, I believe we're at wrap-up. Representative Stapp. Well, Mr. Kocher, I feel like this vote's going to make me a little sad. So, you know, my favorite speech I think I ever read was Ronald Reagan in 1964.

It's called A Time for Choosing. And he said, you and I have been increasingly told that we have to choose between a left and a right. And I would suggest that there's no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or a down. The amendment to restore the West Sioux Access Road is clearly an up, and taking it out of this budget is a down.

I would implore the committee to consider telling Alaskans that we actually will do something to give them a positive, bright future by developing access to the resources of this state. Otherwise, you might as well go back home and say, get ready to move because Alaska is on the path to the ash heap of history because nobody here will ever do anything positive. For what we know. Please vote yes. Thank you very much for those words, Representative Stepp.

With that, I'm going to maintain my objection and ask the clerk to please call the roll. Representative Jimmy. No. Representative Stepp. Yes.

Representative Hannan. No. Representative Tomaszewski. Yes. Representative Allard.

Yes. Representative Moore. Yes. Representative Galvin? No.

Representative Bynum? Yes. Representative Foster? No. Representative Josephson?

No. Representative Schraggi? No. 5 Yea, 6 nay. And on a vote of 5 yea, 6 nay, Amendment Number 8 is not adopted.

This is Amendment Number 9. Representative Sapp? Thank you, Co-Chair. I try to move Amendment 9. And I'll object.

Representative Sapp? Yeah, thank you, uh, Co-Chair Schraggi. So this amendment corrects, um, honestly something that probably shouldn't happen. The other body decided to to skip the major maintenance list in practicality. In theory, they don't because they only partially fund one of the projects on the list.

That's not something that's customarily done. We have a major maintenance list for a reason. It's supposed to stop the legislature from artificially influencing the projects list by moving around projects. And so the entire purpose of having these lists is so you allow the departments to be able to view the projects on the merits of the projects and then take it outside legislative influence. So by skipping the full funding of the Sidney C. Huntington Elementary and High School renovations in the Galena City School District in Galena, we're basically undermining that statutory process, state law.

So what this amendment does is correct that, would fully fund the project on the major maintenance list. There's a lot of information, I would say, And for folks who don't know, Galena has a very popular and successful boarding school. And I distributed information to the table where all the kids come from. You're going to see it's not just folks who live out there in Galena. They bring in kids from all over Western Alaska, from the Kuskokwim.

And there's a letter from the superintendent I'd encourage people to read that this is a really well-done project. And it made the list as high as it did for a reason. And we should fund it without skipping. Thank you. OK, and Representative Tomaszewski.

Yeah, thank you, Coach Arshirogi. So I obviously am in support of this amendment. You know, this sets a dangerous precedent of skipping these schools' list. We have those lists for a reason. We should be following that list and we shouldn't be jumping around to fund one school over another arbitrarily.

This sets a dangerous precedent and we should not be doing this. We should not be setting this example. For future legislatures to do the same thing. And we should be following, following the list. This is obviously a school that needs it, and the reach around the state through this sum of counts of students— I mean, this reaches into probably all of our districts.

I can't imagine that any of our districts are not affected by this, from Anchorage to Fairbanks to Wasilla. To the Lower Kuskokwim. It's in here. We have students from around the state that utilize this school. This is an important area and they are doing good work and we should be rewarding them for doing that good work.

Thank you. All right. Thank you, Representative Tomaszewski. Additional comments from committee members? Representative Galvin.

Thank you. I very much appreciate your comments, Representative Tomaszewski. This is a tricky one because what happens in the way the list is prepared is they line them up based on need. And certainly Galena has a need. Its need was a very high number and on the— it's called a BERGER process, so the building maintenance process.

They look at all of the applications that have come in and then they rank them. And the problem is if they had cho— if they had given the full amount for each project, then that would have meant only getting to the top couple instead of getting to many, many students in the state. So I appreciate this concern. Absolutely. I also appreciate that a significant portion was given to the top one, which is Galena.

And this is a sticky situation, one in which we should have more money in this fund, period. There should be much more money so that all of Galena can be taken care of this year. But I think that they must have come to— this is the Senate who I think help put this together along with, um, the House leadership. And I think what they were trying to do is ensure that other schools could stay afloat. If we don't fix roofs, for example, we're gonna end up— and there were many, um, just down the list from there, um, that needed roofs, and then we would end up with a lot of schools completely collapsing and then a lot more money in the following year, uh, needed.

For many projects. So I think this is a complicated one, and I appreciate your concern. I also appreciate that there was no skipping around the list. It didn't go from 1 to number 7 to number 15. It went 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

It just didn't give the full amount for number 1. So I want to make sure to call that out. It's a very complicated process, and the full amount was not given to number 1, and I appreciate your frustration. And I will be a no vote on this because I think that the best decision was made given with the amount of dollars that are not enough. It's just not enough.

We're not taking care of our schools enough. Thank you. Representative Josephson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know time is short, but it occurs to me also that the beneficiary, ironically, of Galena not getting this full funding is often other rural districts.

Am I right about that, Mr. Chairman? So it's not that rural districts are being ignored. It's far from it. I think the Senate co-chairs meant to get to more districts, just as the previous speaker, Rep. Galvin, noted.

So it's pretty self-evident that the focus was on improving rural opportunities and rural improvement. And as Rep. Galvin said, it's a lack of resources.

Additional discussion from committee members? You know, I would note that I actually appreciate the concerns about deviations from fully funding the list as presented to us. I would note that I also appreciate that this development, specifically this project showing up on the list and advancing to the number 2 place so promptly, has really highlighted some of the problems, structural issues that I believe exist with our school major maintenance list.

You know, it is a difficult situation that we are in because if we were to follow the list as been as is proposed by this amendment, we are following the list. If we are to fully fund according to the list recommendations as this amendment proposes, it means that other schools are not funded. It means that we are not able to reach as many schools and provide as much relief to as many schools. And that's very challenging. I think we should continue to work with the Galena City School District to address their needs.

But I would note that I think this is, the budget as currently structured is appropriate, and that given the school's well-off financial position and their recency on the list, I think we should continue to maintain it at this lower level and apply more scrutiny and work with them in future years to address these needs. I am somewhat concerned by their letter indicating that If the appropriation stays as currently structured, that the money is not useful to them. Frankly, um, it pushes me towards a position of desiring to further reduce funding because I don't think we can go in the direction that this amendment proposes. But for where we are right now, I think we're just going to sit with it where it is and take this.

Through the rest of the process. There will be further opportunities for amendment if that is the body's desire. With that, I would go to Representative Tomaszewski. Yeah, thank you, Coach Arshraghi. No, I just, I think reduction of that money is probably a bad idea, you know.

I mean, given the state of the letter and the state of the school right now, maybe they'll be able to buy some blue tarps, you know, to throw over the roof that's failing. Maybe they can buy a couple more jacks to jack up the foundation that's failing.

And the egress, maybe they can put a few, give the kids some headlamps for when the power goes out and the emergency lights don't work. Maybe they can find their way out of the school with that, with that money that we're giving them. I think it's, I think it's irresponsible of us to skip this school and to not fully fund it. That's all I have. Thanks.

I appreciate those comments, Representative Tomaszewski, and I agree that I'm sure that they would find good uses for the funding. But if I may read the final paragraph on the first page, full transparency: if the district were awarded and accepted the $5 million in funding, it would be an extremely poor utilization of state funding as the district cannot address many of the critical And you get the idea. So.

Not exactly sure what to do with that information, but for right now I think we'll go to the amendment sponsor, Representative Stap, for any wrap-up that there may be. I'm sorry, Representative Galvin. I apologize. I just wanted to make sure that I clear for the record that Galena was not number 1, it was number 2. I want to make sure to be clear about that.

Craig, Craig was number 1, and then Galena, and then Aleutians East Borough, and then Denali Borough, and then number 5 is Iditarod. So I just want to make sure to clear that for the record. And each one of these is again very critical needs, all of them for safety typically. So I just want to make sure that we understand kind of the the brevity of the situation. It's rather the gravity of the situation.

All of these schools need to be worked on. And, and there, if you want more information about each of those, I'm happy to put that forward to the committee and certainly to the public because it's important information for all of us to have. Thank you. Okay. Representative Foster.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to highlight the difficulty of this budget and mention that I've got a school, Stebbins, there is no school there. And we're only able to fund $17 million of the $50 or $60 million that's needed. And so I think that just, you know, we've got a situation where we've just got no school.

And so we've got a lot of schools that have maintenance needs, but if we're prioritizing, you know, where the need is. And so I realize that The budget this year, in terms of revenue that we have, is not as much as we would like. We have had to prioritize. I have come to understand that $17 million for Stevens right now is at least going to get us through phase 1. That is a good thing.

But it highlights the difficulties that we are having with this budget. Thank you. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. With that, I believe we are at wrap-up. Representative Stauch.

Thank you, Co-Chair Sharagi. Appreciate the member from Nome's comments too. I mean, this isn't actually about the money, folks. This is about prioritizing what you value. This committee and the other bodies committee decided they want to go ahead and pick winners and losers, and they decided Galena would be a loser.

And they did that by willfully neglecting the list. Galena's second on the list. We fund schools on the list. You fund the appropriations up to the request. By not doing that, you're making a decision, and the decision is the major maintenance list is only important when we think that it's important.

And if there's other projects on there that we'd rather fund, what we'll do is we'll pretend like we we can throw some money at a project and go down to other ones. And we shouldn't set that principle, we shouldn't set that standard. We should say, look, the major maintenance list is there for a reason. They were the number 2 school on the list. They made a very compelling case.

All the arguments about why, oh, well, they didn't apply for multi-years, that just means they actually did a good job at their application and that the need is real. And the fact that they are going to get skipped on the list is just punishing them. For doing a good thing, i.e., being responsible and doing their due diligence. And if that's the precedent the committee wants to set, I think that's a bad thing in the future. And I'll see— you'll see plenty of finance committees from now on decide that there are projects on the major maintenance list that they just don't want to fund because there's other schools that they want to get to, and they'll skip them.

So hope you vote yes. All right, thank you for those comments. With that, I will maintain my objection and ask the clerk to please call the roll. Representative Stapp. Yes.

Representative Galvin. No. Representative Jimmy. No. Representative Allard.

Yes. Representative Bynum. Yes. Representative Hannon. No.

Representative Moore. Yes. Representative Tomaszewski. Yes. Representative Foster.

No. Representative Josephson. No. Representative Schrag. No.

5 Yea, 6 nay. 5 Yea, 6 nay. Amendment number 9 is not adopted. That brings us to amendment number 10. Representative Bynum.

Brief it is.

Back on the record at 10:12. Representative Bynum. Thank you, co-chair. Chair Schraggi, I move Amendment 10. And I'll object for the purposes of discussion.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Schraggi. What, what Amendment 10 does is that it provides a level of funding necessary to explore and also provide additional information to the legislature. The $5 million appropriation provided would provide funding to the Alaska Energy Authority to support updating the analysis and feasibility work related to the proposed Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. The funding would allow for the authority to evaluate the project's current economic status, the engineering, environmental permitting, and the energy reliability considerations in light of Alaska's evolving energy needs and market conditions.

This review would also identify opportunities to maximize federal participation, including potential eligibility for the federal investment tax credit, ITC, elective pay, and other federal incentives that would materially reduce the state's long-term project cost and improve the overall project feasibility. The reason this— I'm bringing this forward is, is that when I'm talking with AEA, there are some steps that need to be taken, uh, that would then allow them to fundamentally, uh, describe to this legislature the need or the current status of the project and what federal dollars are available. Currently under federal law, there is a program that is in place that will pay for approximately 50%, in some cases more, of a project like this. This could be on the tune of $4+ billion of federal investment into this project. There's a timeline associated with that.

That timeline is critical for us to be able to move to substantial construction. I believe that is 2033. So a lot of work between now and then, but there is time. And so this, this $5 million UGF waterfall provision would basically allow for the potential funding of this very critical and important work. Okay, very good.

Additional committee discussion. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Co-Chair Sharagi. I, I speak in favor of this amendment.

You know, we, we are all feeling the effects of the energy crisis we're having in the state of Alaska, the price of electricity. And it is, it is a pinch that all of us are feeling in the rail belt. This project, if it were done 30 years ago, we would be enjoying probably 10 to 12 cent kilowatt-hour price for electricity. And, and this would be a fantastic thing we should have done a long time ago. You know, this, this just introduces a diversified energy source for our inner— our electric generation, and we should seriously consider this.

This is something that should have been done decades ago, and we really need to support it. So Thank you. Thank you, Representative Tomaszewski. Representative Stout. Thank you, Chair Schrag.

Obviously I'm going to support this amendment. I mean, it's actually really well done. It funds it at a waterfall above $80 a barrel oil, which is also done in the budget. I just want to say, folks, there's a lot of waterfall language.

In there is more impactful or consequential than development assistance in Watana for the bulk of the people who live in Alaska. You know, I mean, so goes the rail belt, so goes the rest of the state. And the fact that there are no substantial investments in this capital budget for 80% of the state's population that is the economic driver of the rest, and it's how we fund the rest of the state's government, is something we should really remedy. And hopefully we'll take the opportunity to remedy here in this amendment. Additional comments from committee members?

Yes, super fast. Rep. Josephson. Mr. Chairman, there are two periods in history where the state has invested in this project. One was in the '80s. It was then mothballed.

One was in the late aughts, early teens under Parnell. This project is billions of dollars to complete and I just don't think $5 million is meaningful. To advancing it.

Additional comments from committee members? I will say that in talking with AEA and correspondence with them, there is a bit of a hindsight 20/20. They had commented that if we had moved forward with this in 2015, we currently have no need for natural gas imports in our future, and that the project would be complete by now. And that on top of all of that, our grid would be 70% renewable energy powered with stable baseload due to this being a hydro project. All very attractive aspects of this project.

My primary reason for opposing this right now is I think we may want to further refine whether the $5 million is the adequate number, but also just do not want to mess with waterfalls at this time.

I do think this is a very worthwhile project. Many of your amendments today, I will say, have been very— projects and proposals that have a lot of merit. I appreciate that. But I'm going to be a no on this amendment at this time. Representative Galvin.

Thank you. I'll echo what we just heard from co-chair Chiragri. Appreciate your comments. But I too don't know about the amount. I haven't heard from AEA directly.

I can tell you that that project, if it goes, we likely will not need a lot of other projects. We were lucky to get a full presentation from AEA a couple of years ago for our freshman class. And what we heard from that was that this project with the newer designs of the way the turbines work in hydro now, it's a lot different than how it was back in the '80s and then in the and where we had heard so much pushback because of how it might impact habitat. But this project of late, the way it sounds, there may be a lot of, I think, important evaluation that we should consider. So I too would support future studies on this and investment, yet I'm not sure that this is the time given this late date in the consideration and we don't have a at the table and all of that.

But I appreciate your amendment. Thank you.

I will say that not to be too cheeky, but this does seem like a better use of state funds than what was discussed a few moments ago on a prior amendment. But here we are with that. I'll go to the amendment sponsor for wrap-up. Not seeing any additional discussion from Representative Tomaszewski. Sorry.

Yes, thank you, Koshir Shargi. Thank you for the, for the second bite at this apple. You know, when I first came to Juneau and I had to rent a house and I had to sign up for electric and heat and all of that, and I got my first electric bill here in Juneau and I was dumbfounded at how cheap it was. Juneau definitely has great rates with their hydropower that they have here. And, and wouldn't that be great to be able to give that to the rest of the state?

And this is a good first step over a project that has been on the books for decades. If not now, when will we take this very important step to actually put a renewable resource on the rail belt for power generation. This is an important critical issue, and anybody who loves renewable energy should really consider this opportunity right now. Thank you.

Representative Bynum, wrap-up. Thank you, and quick wrap-up to Representative Tuck. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Yes, Juneau has the lowest electric rate in the state because of its wonderful resource of hydroelectric power. And that is a theme that comes with hydroelectric power, long-term stable low rates. This is— WATANA is a statewide impacted project.

It is a rail belt power that provides low-cost long-term, low-cost, and reliable power, and it has a direct beneficial impact on Power Cost Equalization program if it were to be implemented. This is 600+ megawatts of clean, reliable energy. And to Representative Josephson, when we talk about the use of the $5 million, talking with the AEA and specifically Curtis Thayer, I asked him directly what would be necessary for us to be able to get an update on the status of the permitting, the status of the investor portfolio that would be helped pay for this project, the status of the investment tax credits that are available through the federal programs, and clearly identify what those are. That's what this money would go to so that they could come to the legislature and very clearly outline the case for the Wotana-Sisseton project, or the Sisseton-Wotana project, and let us know that there is a generational life, generational opportunity with these federal dollars. And it's not— we're not talking millions of dollars, we're not talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, we are talking about billions of dollars available for this project.

I would urge a yes vote. Okay, with that, I'm going to maintain my objection and ask the clerk to please call the roll. Representative Moore. Yes. Representative Galvin.

No. Representative Stapp. Yes. Representative Hannan. No.

Representative Jimmy. Representative Tomaszewski. Yes. Representative Bynum. Yes.

Representative Foster. No. Representative Josephson. No. Representative Schraggy.

No. 4 Yay, 6 nay. 4 Yay, 6 nay. Amendment number 10 is not adopted. That brings us to Amendment number 11.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Schrag. I move Amendment 11. And I'll object for the purposes of discussion. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-Chair Schrag. Amendment 11 is essentially the same amendment as Amendment number 10, with the exception of the fund source. This would be a direct $5 million of fund source from UGF. But given the fact that we would be unable, or that we were unable to pass Amendment Number 10 using a waterfall provision, I believe that using direct UGF would be problematic. But I would enter, I am going to offer a conceptual amendment for consideration of the committee in light of the previous discussion that we had on the Galena School and the $5 million that is being used there and the communication from, uh, the Galena School District in their letter to us about not being able to utilize those funds.

And instead of letting those funds sit unused, um, I would like to be able to use them for a very useful project, of which I believe this is. So I move Conceptual Amendment 1 to 11 to reallocate the Galena $5 million to the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project development funding. I'll object for the purposes of discussion.

Is there discussion on the conceptual amendment?

Not seeing any. Wrap up, Representative Bynum. I'll maintain my objection and ask the clerk to please call the roll. Representative Hannan? No.

Representative Tomaszewski?

Yes. Representative Moore? No. Representative Stapp? No.

Representative Galvin? No. Representative Jimmy? No. Representative Bynum?

Yes. Representative Foster? No. Representative Josephson? No.

Representative Schraggy? No. 2 Yay, 8 nay. 2 Yay, 8 nay. Conceptual amendment is not adopted.

That brings us to the underlying amendment, Amendment Number 11. Thank you, Co-Chair Schrager. I withdraw Amendment Number 11. All right, withdrawn. That brings us to Amendment Number 12.

Representative Bynum? Thank you, Co-Chair Schraggi. I move amendment number 12. And I'll object for the purposes of discussion. Thank you, Co-Chair Schraggi.

Amendment number 12.

Is for us to fund our Harbor Grants, our Harbor Facilities Grants Program for FY '27. This is a statewide list. It is a competitive pro— a competitive list that spans the state. This particular language is for $18.1 million, and it's organized to be a UGF waterfall provision. 1004.

The list of the projects that are currently available in the program are from— span from Wrangell all the way through the state to areas of Anchorage, Kodiak, Petersburg, Unalaska. So this is a statewide program, statewide list that is independently developed Um, and I would like consideration for us to fund this program. And just additionally, when you go look at statute, statute actually identifies funding sources through taxes and fees that are collected. Historically, what the legislature does is they take all of those fees and they put them in the general fund, and then they don't use them for this purpose. Uh, and so I urge your support.

Thank you, Representative Bynum. I think this is a very good program. I've spent considerable time looking at it actually over the last 2 years as capital budget co-chair. Very good program. That said, $18 million is a considerable amount of money.

And in my review, I found that I believe $4 million was recently reappropriated away from this program.

So just given those concerns on the amount of money and whether or not there's support from the administration in moving this forward, I'm going to be a no on this today. Is there additional committee discussion?

Representative Stout. Yeah, I think Coach O'Shaughnessy, I mean, I'm going to support the amendment. I said the only thing on here, I obviously lists are lists and we should follow them. I don't know. I would hope that maybe the boat launch at Sheep Creek probably isn't as important as some of the other ones, but they're all together, so I'll support them because that's what lists are.

Thanks. All right. Thank you, Representative Staub. With that, Representative Bynum, wrap up. Thank you, Co-Chair Schraggy.

I would just point out that these grants being provided for these communities that have applied for the program, this is not just a full grant that's paying for these projects. These communities have put together their own money. And there's caps on this program on what can be provided, up to $5 million. Many of these projects are funding more than 100% on their own for this purpose. So this is what I consider a cost-benefit— a cost— a project multiplier in being able to get these projects performed.

Also, I'd like to point out that there are constraints in these programs, meaning that the communities have to demonstrate self-reliance once these projects are built. So I appreciate the support for the amendment. All right, and I'll maintain my objection and ask the clerk to please call the roll on Amendment Number 12. Representative Jimmy. No.

Representative Stapp. Yes. Representative Galvin. No. Representative Moore.

Yes. Representative Hannan. No. Representative Tomaszewski. Yes.

Representative Bynum. Yes. Representative Josephson. No. Representative Foster.

No. Representative Schraggi. No. 4 Yays, 6 nays. With 4 yays, 6 nays, Amendment 12 is not adopted.

That brings us to Amendment 13. Thank you, Co-Chair Schraggi. Amendment 13 is a very similar amendment with funding directly from UGF. It will not be offered. All right, Amendment 13 will not be offered.

Brings us to the end of our amendment process.

Seeing no additional amendments, Mr. Josephson, do I have a motion? I move that House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 214 Finance Work Draft 34-GS2501 W by Walsh dated May 2nd, 2026, as amended, be reported out of committee with individual recommendations and authorization be given to the Legislative Finance Division and Legislative Legal Services to make technical and conforming changes. Object. All right, and there's an objection. Would you like to speak to your objection, Representative Tomaszewski?

Thank you, Co-Chair Sharkey. Yes, I think this, uh, capital appropriations bill falls short, and I think we have deviated in the process, and I will be I'm going to make a no on this. Thank you. Are there additional committee member discussion? All right, not seeing any additional discussion.

Do you maintain your objection, Representative Tomaszewski? Yes. Okay, I'd ask the clerk to please call the roll. Representative Moore? Yes.

Representative Galvin? Yes. Representative Stapp? Yes. Representative Bynum?

Pass.

Representative Tomaszewski. No. Representative Jimmy. Yes.

Representative Hannon. Yes.

Representative Bynum. Yes. Representative Josephson. Yes. Representative Foster.

Yes. Representative Schraggy. Yes. 9 Yay, 1 nay. All right.

And on a vote of 9 yeas, 1 nay, the committee substitute for Senate Bill 214 has moved to the Finance Committee. I want to thank committee members for your work throughout this process. It's been a pleasure to work with you on this capital budget. Our next meeting of the House Finance Committee is this afternoon at 1:30 p.m. I know that everyone is eagerly awaiting our adjournment so we can get to the floor, and with that in mind, we are adjourned at 10:33 a.m.