Senate passes $2.8 billion capital budget

The package includes deferred maintenance and other infrastructure projects. It also authorizes using $380 million in certain bond proceeds for projects like university arena and building projects and school construction work.

The measure goes to the House, where it could grow.

Gov. Sean Parnell has criticized the spending as too high; Sen. Bert Stedman questioned whether it was high enough. The finance committee co-chair said the first thing legislators did was save -- then put money toward agency and community priorities and into areas like roads, ports and harbors. Stedman said projects were left out.

If the bond package were removed, he said spending would be in line with recent years. Voters must approve that bonding.

-- The Associated Press

Crime lab now faces a test in the Senate

JUNEAU -- The Alaska House has passed legislation that would allow for a new crime lab in Anchorage to move forward.

The bill, passed on a 39-1 vote, now goes to the Senate, where the proposal could face opposition, or changes.

Senate Finance Committee co-chair Bert Stedman reiterated his concerns Tuesday with the cost and size of the project. He also said it's possible the lab -- a priority of Gov. Sean Parnell's -- could be part of a bond proposal put to voters. The lab was left out of a larger capital spending plan crafted in the Senate.

The bill passed by the House allows for issuance of so-called certificates of participation for nearly $76 million to help with financing of a lab.

-- The Associated Press

Petroleum tax bill moved to next committee

JUNEAU -- A House committee has moved out its version of a bill that would change Alaska's system of taxing oil and gas production together.

This followed at-times tense meetings, some of which went late into the night and left some in the room more confused than when the hearings began.

The bill moved from the Resources Committee to the Finance Committee, its last stop before consideration by the entire House. The Senate passed its own version earlier.

Those backing a change want to guard against what they say could be the loss of billions of dollars in revenue, once gas flows through a proposed major pipeline. This is due to a potential "dilution effect" under the current regime, when oil prices are high relative to gas.

Others aren't convinced action is needed now.

-- The Associated Press