Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority: Laraine Derr | |
| HB254 | |
| HB156 | |
| HB209 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 254 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 209 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 209
"An Act relating to an Alaska Water and Sewer Advisory
Committee; and providing for an effective date."
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 209 (FIN), Work Draft (29-LS0306\P).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
spoke to two changes in the bill. The first change was in
Section 2, page 2, line 3. It deleted the number 9 and
replaced it with 10. The second change was in Section 2,
page 2, line 16. It added the following:
"A senior employee with expertise in environmental
health and engineering from a large nonprofit tribal
health organization operating in the stat appointed by
the members of the bush caucus; and"
Mr. Anderson relayed that Representative Edgmon was
available to speak about the impacts of the changes.
Representative Edgmon explained that the change would bring
the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium into the
advisory committee. He thought it was a change that rounded
out the make-up of the advisory committee and it was a
worth-while addition to the bill.
Vice-Chair Saddler had no objection to the addition but
wanted to see a definition of the bush caucus and a
membership list before he could support the committee
substitute.
Mr. Anderson believed the sponsor might be able to better
address the full definition. He pointed to the bill in
Section 2, page 4, line 2-7, provided the definition of
"bush caucus."
Vice-Chair Saddler still wanted to see a list of current
members. He supposed in reading the language of the
committee substitute in Section 2, page 4 it would mean
whomever happened to be representing the communities into
the future. He wanted to see a list of current members
before the bill went to the floor.
Co-Chair Thompson would have the list produced.
Representative Guttenberg referred to Page 4, line 2. He
hoped that it included legislators that represented any of
the communities rather than all of the communities. The
communities listed represent villages that did not have
sewer and water at present. He asked if he was correct.
4:30:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEIL FOSTER, SPONSOR, DISTRICT 39,
introduced himself. The villages listed in the bill were
communities currently unserved. Bush Caucus members
currently included were Representatives Foster, Nageak,
Edgmon, Talerico, and Herron and Senators Olson, Hoffmann,
and Bishop.
PAUL LABOLLE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEIL FOSTER, stated
that the list of villages in question was the list provided
by Village Safe Water.
Representative Foster emphasized that the bill had a zero
fiscal note.
Mr. Labolle stated that the bill essentially established an
advisory committee to look at the gap between the
established need for water and sewer infrastructure and
available funding. He thought everyone was in agreement
that it was unlikely to see any increase in funding in the
near future. The main focus of the committee would be how
to do the job better, faster, and cheaper. Members would be
asked to work telephonically, as there would be no travel
budget, and there would be no compensation for members. It
required that the committee issue a report on December 1,
2017 due to the legislature. He was happy to review
committee appointment and members or be available for
questions.
Co-Chair Thompson encouraged Mr. Labolle to continue.
Mr. Labolle referred to Section 2, page 2, line 4. A member
of the senate would be appointed by members of the bush
caucus. He reported working with the staff of the Senate
Community and Regional Affairs Committee to derive a good
definition for bush caucus.
Representative Gattis asked if there were any communities
that were served by another legislator outside of the bush
caucus that was not included. Mr. Labolle responded in the
negative. He indicated that the comprehensive list was
reflective in the bill. Additional people were desired.
However, in trying to develop a good definition for
statute, the list was as it stood.
Representative Gattis specified that her question had been
answered.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that he had no sewer
and water systems in villages within his district.
4:35:08 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked about the selected
communities and whether they were unserved. Mr. Labolle
responded affirmatively. He clarified that there were three
types of services that Village Safe Water worked under
including unserved communities, underserved communities,
and communities with upgrades that did not have a
substantial threat.
Representative Kawasaki was not concerned about the way the
bill was constructed. He commented that there were
underserved rural communities. He wondered why they would
not be included and, thus, a larger list of bush caucus
members. Mr. Labolle relayed that it had been discussed
with staff in Community and Regional Affairs. The reason
was to save paper because according to Legislative Legal
every community had to be cited by name, rather than
referencing a list. The bill would have been physically
much larger.
Representative Wilson asked about what distinguished
qualifying communities from other communities. Mr. Labolle
deferred to Mr. Griffith from Alaska Native Health
Consortium [Department of Environmental Conservation].
Representative Wilson explained that her question was posed
in order to better understand the difference between
communities that did and did not have septic systems.
Individual septic systems were prominent in the Fairbanks
North Star Borough. She wondered if the designation for the
qualifying communities was based on the Clean Water Act.
BILL GRIFFITH, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
(via teleconference), answered that the list included
communities in which there was no community or individual
water and sewer services to individual homes. It meant that
the community did not have a pipe system, or wells and
septic systems that could be installed. There also was no
community haul system. The homes were without service in
the communities on the list.
4:38:47 PM
Representative Wilson asked if they were unable to have a
system installed. She wanted to make a distinction. Mr.
Griffith responded in the affirmative. The department had
been providing water and sewer services to rural Alaska
villages. Generally, the villages that remained were the
ones where the easier options were not available. The
preferred option was to install wells and septic systems
anywhere possible. In these particular communities either
there was no ground water for wells or there was no way to
put individual septic systems in because of permafrost or
ground water.
4:39:49 PM
Representative Edgmon asked Mr. Griffith to list the myriad
of state and federal funding sources that generally went
into funding water and sewer projects. He also asked him to
describe the larger picture of water and sewer systems in
rural Alaska. Some communities, although had systems in
place, were old and aging and would be in need of
maintenance at some point soon. He opined that down the
road without proper maintenance and upkeep of the systems
their efficacy would be in question.
Mr. Griffith reported that the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) received about $60 million in federal
funds to make improvements in rural water and sewer
systems. He explained that the federal funding came to
Alaska from 3 different federal agencies. The first was
Indian Health Service (IHS) which did not require any state
match. The second was the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) which provided a grant award through the State
of Alaska that required some state match. The third agency
was the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the rural
development program which required some state match. The
largest single funder was the EPA. There were a couple of
different ways that the funding was allocated. The funding
that came through the State of Alaska and required a state
match was allocated by the Village Safe Water Program and
the DEC. The Indian Health Service funding was allocated by
a national Indian health service prioritization system
called the Sanitation Deficiency System. Both pots of money
used the same data base of project needs. The data base of
water and sewer project needs was updated yearly. There
were three types of projects listed in the database. The
first type was the first-time service project, a project
that provided water and sewer to homes for the first time.
He furthered that the total project need associated with
these types of projects was slightly over $521 million.
Mr. Griffith continued with the second category of project
need, upgrades to address substantial health threats. The
upgrades were significant improvements needed to keep
existing systems operational to provide adequate water or
to meet current regulations. The funding needed for
upgrades was about $300 million.
Mr. Griffith discussed the third category of need, upgrades
to benefit system operation and address minor health
threats. The amount was about $400 million. The state did
not match these funds. The total funding need for the types
of projects DEC provided funding for was just over $800
million. He reported that typically every year the state
received about $60 million to address the state's needs.
There was a significant gap between the amount of state
project need and the amount of funding it received each
year.
4:44:49 PM
Representative Edgmon asked if an advisory group would be
useful. He was thinking about the focus on the Arctic and
the U.S. having the chairmanship of the Arctic Council for
a couple more years. Many of the underserved communities
were in the Arctic. He thought it could not hurt the cause
to get additional federal funding at a time when state
funding had plateaued.
Mr. Griffith thought the advisory committee could be useful
in raising awareness and understanding about some of these
challenges in Alaska and nationally. The Department of
Environmental Conservation had several things going on in
relation to the Arctic Council. There was an international
conference planned for September 2016 to be held in
Anchorage at which DEC would be focusing on some of the
challenges at the conference. An advisory committee could
be tied in with the conference and other things going on.
Mr. Griffith informed members that a lot of the things
called for in the bill were already going on. However,
there were other things on the list of deliverables that
might benefit from having an advisory committee to work
with. The committee would be able to keep the legislature
more informed about things happening and some of the
challenges that were being faced. He thought it could help
the overall effort.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to Section 1, page 1, line 12.
He asked about the word "sewer" system and what it
encompassed. Mr. Griffith stated that it applied to
whatever means an individual community had for collecting
sewage from individual homes and other buildings - the
collection system overall and the treatment and disposal
system the community used. In some cases it could be pipes
and a community lagoon and in other cases it could be
referring to individual septic systems.
Co-Chair Thompson thanked Mr. Griffith for his testimony.
4:48:47 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to the same line that stated it
was the legislature's responsibility to ensure safe and
sustainable water and sewer systems to all communities of
the state. He thought it was a fairly broad, encompassing,
and generous statement. He wondered if he meant all
communities. He asked about the standards. Mr. Labolle
explained that the same issue came up in the previous
committee in House Community and Regional Affairs. As a
result, the change was made from "individuals" in the state
to "communities" in the state. The state would not have to
provide for a single person at a mining camp, for example.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about a standard or a definition
of what the threshold was for communities. Mr. Labolle
stated that the intent of the bill was to address
communities on the Village Safe Water list.
Representative Guttenberg commented that in Section 2, page
3, line 19, he felt that his issue was addressed. Many of
the villages he represented had water or sewer. However the
only thing worse than having a sewer was having one that
could not be maintained and remained broken. He appreciated
hearing about maintaining the state's investments. He
believed that building modern systems that were low in cost
and sustainable was very important to discuss. Mr. Labolle
stated that one of the main focuses was to address the fact
that previous systems had been built to a standard that was
not really maintainable. The state was trying to get away
from systems that could not be maintained.
Representative Edgmon made a humorous remark.
4:51:28 PM
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
4:51:56 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler reviewed the zero fiscal note from the
Alaska Legislature. The appropriation was the Legislative
council and the allocation was Council and Subcommittees.
The component number from the Office of Management and
Budget was 783, and the fiscal note was dated March 25,
2016.
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to report CSHB 209 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note(s). There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
CSHB 209 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a previously published zero fiscal
note: FN1 (CRA).
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the following
day.