Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519

04/27/2023 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved CSHB 26(TRB) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
Moved SB 87 Out of Committee
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                      April 27, 2023                                                                                            
                         1:42 p.m.                                                                                              
1:42:14 PM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Foster  called the House Finance  Committee meeting                                                                    
to order at 1:42 p.m.                                                                                                           
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair                                                                                           
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair                                                                                         
Representative Julie Coulombe                                                                                                   
Representative Mike Cronk                                                                                                       
Representative Alyse Galvin                                                                                                     
Representative Sara Hannan                                                                                                      
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
Representative Dan Ortiz                                                                                                        
Representative Will Stapp                                                                                                       
Representative Frank Tomaszewski                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Laura Achee, Staff, Senator  Jesse Bjorkman; Matthew Harvey,                                                                    
Staff,   Senator  James   Kaufman;  Trevor   Jepsen,  Staff,                                                                    
Representative    Tom    McKay;   Paul    LaBolle,    Staff,                                                                    
Representative   Neal  Foster;   Carrie  Bohan,   Facilities                                                                    
Program   Manager,   Division   of  Water,   Department   of                                                                    
Environmental   Conservation;  Representative   Andi  Story,                                                                    
Sponsor;  Senator  Jesse  Bjorkman, Sponsor;  Senator  James                                                                    
Kaufman,  Sponsor;  Alexei  Painter,  Director,  Legislative                                                                    
Finance Division;  Representative Tom McKay,  Sponsor; Randy                                                                    
Bates,   Director,   Division   of  Water,   Department   Of                                                                    
Environmental Conservation.                                                                                                     
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
Jeremy  Douse,  Northern   Regional  Forester,  Division  of                                                                    
Forestry   and  Fire   Protection,  Department   of  Natural                                                                    
Resources;  Randall   Zarnke,  President,   Alaska  Trappers                                                                    
Association,  Fairbanks;  Megan   Hillgartner,  Division  of                                                                    
Mining  Land and  Water,  Department  of Natural  Resources;                                                                    
Francine   Moreno,   Director,  Rural   Utility   Management                                                                    
Services, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium.                                                                               
HB  26    COUNCIL FOR ALASKA NATIVE LANGUAGES                                                                                   
          HB 26  was REPORTED  out of  committee with  a "do                                                                    
          pass"  recommendation  and   with  one  previously                                                                    
          published fiscal impact note: FN1 (DCCED).                                                                            
HB  93    LUMBER GRADING PROGRAM                                                                                                
          HB 93 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                    
SB  87    LUMBER GRADING PROGRAM                                                                                                
          SB 87  was REPORTED  out of  committee with  a "do                                                                    
          pass"  recommendation  and   with  one  previously                                                                    
          published fiscal note: FN1 (DNR).                                                                                     
HB 125    TRAPPING CABINS ON STATE LAND                                                                                         
          HB  125  was  HEARD  and  HELD  in  committee  for                                                                    
          further consideration.                                                                                                
SB  25    REPEALING FUNDS, ACCOUNTS, AND PROGRAMS                                                                               
          SB 25 was HEARD and  HELD in committee for further                                                                    
HB 178    VILLAGE SAFE WATER FACILITIES                                                                                         
          HB  178  was  HEARD  and  HELD  in  committee  for                                                                    
          further consideration.                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.                                                                                    
HOUSE BILL NO. 26                                                                                                             
     "An   Act   renaming   the   Alaska   Native   Language                                                                    
     Preservation and Advisory Council as the Council for                                                                       
     Alaska Native Languages; and relating to the Council                                                                       
     for Alaska Native Languages."                                                                                              
1:43:48 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDI STORY,  SPONSOR, introduced  HB 26  and                                                                    
explained that  she brought  forward the  bill on  behalf of                                                                    
the  Alaska   Native  Language  Preservation   and  Advisory                                                                    
Council  (ANLPAC). The  changes  proposed by  the bill  were                                                                    
simple  but  would  be   significant  improvements  for  the                                                                    
council.  The  first  proposed  change  was  a  name  change                                                                    
simplifying  the council's  name to  the Council  for Alaska                                                                    
Native Languages.  The bill would also  expand the council's                                                                    
membership from five voting members  to seven voting members                                                                    
and would update the co-official  languages of Alaska, which                                                                    
unintentionally excluded some indigenous languages.                                                                             
Co-Chair  Foster  asked if  there  were  questions from  the                                                                    
Representative  Stapp  asked if  there  could  be any  other                                                                    
Alaska   Native  languages   that  were   potentially  being                                                                    
Representative  Story responded  that  there  was an  Alaska                                                                    
Native  language  summit  sponsored  by  the  Department  of                                                                    
Education  and   Early  Development  (DEED)   that  occurred                                                                    
earlier in the  day and many of the council  members were at                                                                    
the  summit.  It  was  her understanding  that  all  of  the                                                                    
languages would be recognized if the bill were to pass.                                                                         
1:46:11 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Foster  OPENED  public  testimony for  HB  26.  He                                                                    
commented  that he  had heard  significant  support for  the                                                                    
bill. Although there were not  many testifiers online, there                                                                    
was  not a  lack of  support.  The lack  of testifiers  only                                                                    
indicated that it was a simple and straightforward bill.                                                                        
Co-Chair  Foster  CLOSED  public testimony.  He  noted  that                                                                    
interested  individuals could  submit written  testimony and                                                                    
offered instructions on how to do so.                                                                                           
Representative Tomaszewski  explained Fiscal Note (FN)  1 by                                                                    
the   Department  of   Commerce,   Community  and   Economic                                                                    
Development  (DCCED)  [control   code  gBxUP].  The  $10,000                                                                    
allocation was  for the Division  of Community  and Regional                                                                    
Affairs (DCRA).                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Foster relayed that he  would entertain a motion to                                                                    
move the bill if it were the desire of the committee.                                                                           
1:48:19 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Tomaszewski MOVED  to  REPORT HB  26 out  of                                                                    
committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal note.                                                                                                       
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
HB  26  was REPORTED  out  of  committee  with a  "do  pass"                                                                    
recommendation  and  with  one previously  published  fiscal                                                                    
impact note: FN1 (CED).                                                                                                         
SENATE BILL NO. 87                                                                                                            
     "An Act  relating to a lumber  grading training program                                                                    
     and  lumber grading  certificates; relating  to use  of                                                                    
     lumber  graded  and certified  by  a  person holding  a                                                                    
     lumber  grading   training  program   certificate;  and                                                                    
     providing for an effective date."                                                                                          
1:49:06 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster explained that SB  87 was the companion bill                                                                    
to  HB 93,  sponsored  by Representative  Jesse Sumner.  The                                                                    
committee heard HB 93 on April 14, 2023.                                                                                        
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, SPONSOR,  introduced SB 87. The bill                                                                    
would  allow for  local lumber  millers and  saw millers  to                                                                    
receive training  from the  Department of  Natural Resources                                                                    
(DNR) through  the University  of Alaska  (UA) to  grade and                                                                    
assess the  lumber and subsequently  sell the lumber  to the                                                                    
end user to build residential homes.                                                                                            
Co-Chair Foster asked if committee members had questions.                                                                       
Representative Ortiz  asked whether  the bill  addressed how                                                                    
an individual could become a  lumber grader. He recently had                                                                    
a  constituent call  him  and  ask how  to  become a  lumber                                                                    
grading trainer.                                                                                                                
Senator Bjorkman  responded that  the bill would  initiate a                                                                    
training program.                                                                                                               
1:51:47 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Galvin relayed  that she  was supportive  of                                                                    
the bill  and had  already co-sponsored the  House companion                                                                    
bill. She  asked if the bill  would act as a  stepping stone                                                                    
to  the  next level  of  a  grading  program that  would  be                                                                    
inclusive of products that could  be used for larger houses.                                                                    
There was a  great need for housing in the  more urban areas                                                                    
and wondered if the bill would be expanded upon.                                                                                
Senator Bjorkman responded that  the reason the restrictions                                                                    
limiting  locally  graded  lumber   were  in  place  was  in                                                                    
correspondence  to  the  strength testing  that  lumber  was                                                                    
required to  undergo by lumber  grading agencies.  The local                                                                    
lumber was not  less strong, but the reason  why the program                                                                    
was not  made available for  the purpose of  building larger                                                                    
structures was for quality control  to maintain a one-to-one                                                                    
relationship between  the seller  and the buyer.  He thought                                                                    
it was smart to begin the  program on a smaller scale. There                                                                    
was  potential for  it  to  be a  stepping  stone to  larger                                                                    
projects, but  it would  be under  the purview  of statewide                                                                    
building codes.                                                                                                                 
Representative Coulombe  asked about Section 41  of the bill                                                                    
which stated that the certification  would be valid for five                                                                    
years. She  asked if a  person would  need to do  the entire                                                                    
program again after the certification  had expired or if the                                                                    
process could be expedited.                                                                                                     
Senator  Bjorkman   deferred  the  question  to   an  online                                                                    
1:55:15 PM                                                                                                                    
JEREMY  DOUSE,   NORTHERN  REGIONAL  FORESTER,   DIVISON  OF                                                                    
FORESTRY   AND  FIRE   PROTECTION,  DEPARTMENT   OF  NATURAL                                                                    
RESOURCES  (via teleconference),  responded that  the intent                                                                    
was  that the  individual would  take the  class again.  The                                                                    
class  was  only  one  day   and  he  thought  it  would  be                                                                    
beneficial   for  individuals   to   receive  the   learning                                                                    
experience again. Additionally, the class would be free.                                                                        
Representative Cronk  appreciated the  bill and  believed it                                                                    
was  a  stepping stone  in  creating  a vibrant  timber  and                                                                    
lumber  industry in  the  state. He  thought  timber was  an                                                                    
endless resource in the state.                                                                                                  
Representative Hannan commented that  she had been concerned                                                                    
that  the program  would  be housed  in  the university  but                                                                    
there was  no information provided from  the university. She                                                                    
was aware  that the  university had  stated its  support for                                                                    
the  legislation  in  a  letter,  but  the  letter  was  not                                                                    
included in  committee packets. She  wanted to  give Senator                                                                    
Bjorkman  the  opportunity  to  speak  on  the  university's                                                                    
Senator Bjorkman deferred the question to his staff.                                                                            
LAURA ACHEE,  STAFF, SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN,  responded that                                                                    
DNR had spoken with UA  about creating a position that would                                                                    
support the instruction for the  lumber grading program. The                                                                    
fiscal note was  from DNR because it was a  DNR program. The                                                                    
department  could have  chosen to  conduct the  training in-                                                                    
house or  work with  another vendor, but  ultimately decided                                                                    
to collaborate with the university.                                                                                             
Co-Chair  Foster  asked Mr.  Douse  to  describe the  fiscal                                                                    
Mr. Douse explained  that the fiscal note  from DNR [control                                                                    
code pQzXM]  would not require any  additional personnel but                                                                    
would  require some  additional travel  expenses for  lumber                                                                    
milling and grading  training events. Additionally, expenses                                                                    
for  contractual services  through  a reimbursable  services                                                                    
agreement  with  the  university would  be  incurred.  There                                                                    
would also be a cost  for commodities, which would cover the                                                                    
cost of  publishing a lumber  grading handbook  for purposes                                                                    
of training.                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Foster noted  that there  were  no amendments.  He                                                                    
would entertain  a motion  to move  the bill  if it  was the                                                                    
will of the committee.                                                                                                          
2:00:45 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Tomaszewski MOVED  to  REPORT SB  87 out  of                                                                    
committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal note.                                                                                                       
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
SB 87 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"                                                                            
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal                                                                         
note: FN1 (DNR).                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 25                                                                                                            
     "An Act relating to inactive  state accounts and funds;                                                                    
     relating  to   the  curriculum  improvement   and  best                                                                    
     practices  fund; relating  to the  fuel emergency  fund                                                                    
     and  fuel emergency  grants;  relating  to the  special                                                                    
     Alaska   Historical    Commission   receipts   account;                                                                    
     relating  to the  rural electrification  revolving loan                                                                    
     fund  and   loans  from  the  fund;   relating  to  the                                                                    
     Southeast  energy fund  and grants  from the  fund; and                                                                    
     relating to  the Exxon Valdez oil  spill unincorporated                                                                    
     rural community grant fund and grants from the fund."                                                                      
2:01:35 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster noted that the next bill would be SB 25.                                                                        
2:01:50 PM                                                                                                                    
2:03:33 PM                                                                                                                    
2:03:58 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR JAMES  KAUFMAN, SPONSOR, introduced SB  25. The bill                                                                    
had been  nicknamed "silly  funds" because  the goal  was to                                                                    
eradicate  funds that  were meaningless.  He  read from  the                                                                    
sponsor statement (copy on file):                                                                                               
     SB  25, in  its current  form, is  intended to  improve                                                                    
     performance   by  reducing   administrative  cost   and                                                                    
     complexity associated with  maintenance and tracking of                                                                    
     accounts that are no longer needed but are still open.                                                                     
     The state  of Alaska  at various times  creates special                                                                    
     accounts  to   receive  and  hold  money   for  certain                                                                    
     purposes,  but over  time some  of  those funds  become                                                                    
     dormant and are no longer needed.                                                                                          
     This can  include filled funds that  are not supporting                                                                    
     active programs,  empty funds  that are  not supporting                                                                    
     active programs and funds held in trust.                                                                                   
     Reducing  the  administrative   burden  of  maintaining                                                                    
     unneeded  funds  is a  prime  example  of the  type  of                                                                    
     incremental  continuous improvement  that is  needed as                                                                    
     Alaska faces new fiscal challenges.                                                                                        
Senator Kaufman explained that  his office reviewed existing                                                                    
funds,  determined which  funds were  no longer  needed, and                                                                    
created  a mechanism  to  review funds  every  two years  to                                                                    
determine if there  were any additional funds  that could be                                                                    
2:06:17 PM                                                                                                                    
MATTHEW HARVEY, STAFF, SENATOR JAMES KAUFMAN, read the                                                                          
sectional analysis of SB 25 (copy on file):                                                                                     
     Section 1:                                                                                                                 
     Amends  AS  24.20.020  to add  a  requirement  for  the                                                                    
     Legislative  Finance Division  to conduct  a review  of                                                                    
     inactive state  accounts and funds at  the beginning of                                                                    
     each  new  legislature  and  to  submit  an  electronic                                                                    
     report   including   recommendations  regarding   which                                                                    
     inactive state  accounts and funds should  be repealed.                                                                    
     The  report  distribution  list  is  included  in  this                                                                    
     Section 2:                                                                                                                 
     Adds a new subsection to  AS 37.07.020 stating that the                                                                    
     governor may act upon  the Legislative Finance Division                                                                    
     report in Section 1 of  SB 25 by submitting legislation                                                                    
     in accordance with the report.                                                                                             
     Section 3:                                                                                                                 
     Repeals  the  statutory  authority  for  the  following                                                                    
     funds not supporting current or active programs.                                                                           
     •  AS  14.07.182     Curriculum  Improvement  and  Best                                                                    
     Practices Fund                                                                                                             
     • AS 26.23.400  Fuel Emergency Fund                                                                                        
     • AS 41.35.380    Alaska Historical Commission Receipts                                                                    
     • AS  42.45.020   Rural Electrification  Revolving Loan                                                                    
     • AS 44.33.115    Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Unincorporated                                                                    
     Rural Community Grant Fund                                                                                                 
Co-Chair  Foster asked  Senator  Kaufman  whether the  Rural                                                                    
Electrification  Revolving  Loan  Fund  (RERLF)  related  to                                                                    
efforts to  construct high powered  electric lines  in rural                                                                    
areas of the state.                                                                                                             
Senator Kaufman responded that the  loan program was largely                                                                    
supplanted by  the Electrical  Service Extension  fund. Many                                                                    
of the accounts  had names that sounded  compelling, but the                                                                    
funds had been supplanted by other funds.                                                                                       
Representative  Josephson noted  that  the Southeast  Energy                                                                    
Fund (SEF) was slated to be  removed, but it was also listed                                                                    
under  repeals.  He asked  Mr.  Harvey  for clarity  on  the                                                                    
Mr. Harvey responded that the  Committee Substitute that was                                                                    
passed  by Senate  Finance  [CSSB(FIN)]  removed the  energy                                                                    
fund and  the inclusion of the  fund on the list  of repeals                                                                    
seemed to be an error.                                                                                                          
Representative Josephson  noted that  SEF still  appeared to                                                                    
be in the bill.                                                                                                                 
Mr. Harvey responded that AS 42.45.020 was in the bill.                                                                         
Representative Josephson indicated that he had misread it.                                                                      
2:10:20 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Edgmon asked Senator Kaufman  if there would be any                                                                    
implications relative  to the Infrastructure  Investment and                                                                    
Jobs  Act  (IIJA)  if  SEF  was removed.  He  was  leery  of                                                                    
removing fund  that were inactive  that might have  a future                                                                    
purpose. He was in support of the bill.                                                                                         
Senator Kaufman  responded that in  the process  of crafting                                                                    
the bill, he found many funds  that had reasons to exist. He                                                                    
was  not married  to the  idea  of any  specific fund  being                                                                    
deleted.  The  idea behind  the  bill  was more  focused  on                                                                    
implementing a  clean-up mechanism  that would  require that                                                                    
the funds  be reviewed  every two  years. He  would research                                                                    
whether there would  be any impact on IIJA  and would follow                                                                    
up with the committee with the information.                                                                                     
Co-Chair Foster requested that an  entity such as the Alaska                                                                    
Energy Authority (AEA) provide  information to the committee                                                                    
about  the potential  impact of  the removal  of the  energy                                                                    
Co-Chair Edgmon  commented that  it was  easy to  remove the                                                                    
funds  but   difficult  to  reinstate  the   funds.  He  was                                                                    
supportive of the  bill but would like to  be cautious about                                                                    
the potential consequences.                                                                                                     
Representative  Hannan wondered  if the  any entities  under                                                                    
which a fund had been created  had indicated that a fund was                                                                    
not needed. She  asked Mr. Harvey how much money  was in the                                                                    
funds and whether the money  was supposed to be compiled for                                                                    
ten years.  She agreed  that if there  were funds  that were                                                                    
not being  used that  the funds should  be removed,  but she                                                                    
wanted to ensure  that entities that were  responsible for a                                                                    
fund agreed that it was no longer needed.                                                                                       
Mr. Harvey responded that as a  result of the sweep in prior                                                                    
years, many  of the funds  with statutory authority  now had                                                                    
zero  balances. The  Fuel Emergency  Fund had  a balance  of                                                                    
about $22,000,  but the Disaster  Relief Fund was  now being                                                                    
used  for  the  same  intents and  purposes  for  which  the                                                                    
emergency fund was initially created.                                                                                           
2:14:51 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Galvin  appreciated the  intent of  the bill.                                                                    
She did some  research on the bill and  commented that there                                                                    
was a section in  AS 43.05.095 covering indirect expenditure                                                                    
reports. It  seemed as though the  commissioner was required                                                                    
to  provide an  annual  report  to the  chair  of the  House                                                                    
Finance  Committee  (HFC)  detailing the  expenditures.  She                                                                    
thought the  process already seemed  to be in place  and she                                                                    
was curious what would change with the bill.                                                                                    
Senator  Kaufman replied  that  the bill  would require  the                                                                    
Legislative   Finance   Division   (LFD)   to   review   the                                                                    
expenditures  and  deliver the  report.  He  argued that  it                                                                    
would expediate the process.                                                                                                    
Representative Galvin relayed that  she was not certain what                                                                    
to do with  the information. She wondered if  the purpose of                                                                    
the  bill  was to  further  emphasize  the intent  that  was                                                                    
already in statute but was not being followed.                                                                                  
Senator  Kaufman  responded  that  the  bill  might  further                                                                    
emphasize the intent in an indirect way.                                                                                        
Representative  Coulombe thought  there  was concern  around                                                                    
deleting  accounts. She  stated her  understanding that  LFD                                                                    
would  review the  accounts every  two  years and  recommend                                                                    
which  ones should  be deleted.  Subsequently, the  governor                                                                    
would  need to  introduce legislation  to have  the accounts                                                                    
deleted. She asked if her understanding was correct.                                                                            
Senator Kaufman responded in the affirmative.                                                                                   
Representative Coulombe  asked if  funds would  be allocated                                                                    
to  the unrestricted  general fund  (UGF)  if accounts  that                                                                    
still contained  funds were closed.  She wondered  who would                                                                    
decide where the money would go.                                                                                                
Senator Kaufman replied that the funds would go to UGF.                                                                         
Co-Chair Johnson  referred to page  2, line 20 of  the bill.                                                                    
She commented  that sometimes  HFC did not  have a  chair or                                                                    
had  multiple chairs.  She asked  if there  needed to  be an                                                                    
amendment in order to accommodate all possible scenarios.                                                                       
Senator Kaufman responded that he  would be amendable to the                                                                    
introduction of an amendment.                                                                                                   
Co-Chair  Johnson replied  that she  had wondered  about the                                                                    
verbiage of "chair" as compared to "chairs."                                                                                    
Representative Stapp relayed  that he was going  to make the                                                                    
same comment  as Co-Chair Johnson.  He appreciated  the bill                                                                    
and the  efforts to  clean up the  processes to  ensure that                                                                    
unnecessary funds were deleted.                                                                                                 
2:20:39 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Hannan referred to  AS 43.05.095 mentioned by                                                                    
Representative  Galvin,  which  directed the  Department  of                                                                    
Revenue (DOR)  to manage accounts.  She understood  that the                                                                    
bill would request  LFD to review the accounts  and create a                                                                    
report.  She  asked  if  DOR had  not  been  completing  the                                                                    
statutory duties  and whether LFD  would be the  best entity                                                                    
to conduct  the duties  in the  department's stead.  She was                                                                    
amenable to  restructuring the process but  it appeared that                                                                    
the accounts were  intended to be under the  purview of DOR.                                                                    
She  wondered if  substituting  DOR for  LFD  would fix  the                                                                    
Senator Kaufman  responded that the zero  fiscal note stated                                                                    
that LFD  could easily  absorb the  duties into  its current                                                                    
workload and it would not be a financial burden.                                                                                
Mr. Harvey responded that he  did not have the definition of                                                                    
indirect  expenditures  in front  of  him,  but it  was  his                                                                    
understanding  that the  accounts that  were proposed  to be                                                                    
deleted  were  outside of  the  definition  and it  was  not                                                                    
statutorily required to  have it included in  the report. He                                                                    
understood that it would be  a slightly different report. He                                                                    
would  follow up  with the  committee with  a more  in depth                                                                    
response in writing.                                                                                                            
Co-Chair Foster asked Mr. Alexei Painter to comment.                                                                            
2:23:22 PM                                                                                                                    
ALEXEI  PAINTER,  DIRECTOR,  LEGISLATIVE  FINANCE  DIVISION,                                                                    
explained  that  LFD  conducted one  half  of  the  indirect                                                                    
expenditure  report and  DOR conducted  the other  half. The                                                                    
report  for which  LFD was  already  responsible focused  on                                                                    
forgone  revenue and  not on  funds. He  relayed that  there                                                                    
would  be  two  separate  reports  and it  would  be  a  new                                                                    
statutory  responsibility for  LFD.  He  clarified that  DOR                                                                    
conducted its portion of the  indirect expenditure report as                                                                    
required by statute  and LFD crafted a  different portion of                                                                    
the report.                                                                                                                     
Representative  Galvin commented  that  she appreciated  the                                                                    
clarification. She wondered if  the process would be similar                                                                    
for both reports.                                                                                                               
Mr. Painter responded in the  affirmative. He explained that                                                                    
DOR  was   responsible  for  a   portion  of   the  indirect                                                                    
expenditure  report   on  an  annual   basis  and   LFD  was                                                                    
responsible  for  another portion  that  ran  on a  six-year                                                                    
cycle. The proposal would  involve an additional publication                                                                    
every two  years on  the funds.  The division  repeated some                                                                    
information provided by DOR but  also added information that                                                                    
was not included in DOR's portion of the report.                                                                                
Representative  Galvin  asked  for  clarification  that  LFD                                                                    
collected  the report  by  DOR and  combined  it with  LFD's                                                                    
report before presenting it to the committee.                                                                                   
Mr. Painter responded in the affirmative.                                                                                       
2:26:28 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Coulombe   asked  Senator  Kaufman   if  all                                                                    
accounts would be reviewed or only the accounts under DOR.                                                                      
Senator Kaufman deferred the question to Mr. Painter.                                                                           
Mr.   Painter  responded   that   the  bill   did  not   say                                                                    
specifically that it  would only review funds  under DOR and                                                                    
there might  be funds outside  of the department  that would                                                                    
be required to be included  in the report. He clarified that                                                                    
the report would go beyond the funds administered by DOR.                                                                       
Representative Coulombe  asked if  the permanent  fund would                                                                    
be reviewed.                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Painter   responded  that  the  permanent   fund  would                                                                    
certainly not be  considered an inactive fund,  but the fund                                                                    
was within DOR.                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair   Foster   reminded    the   committee   that   the                                                                    
presentation  was  intended to  be  an  introduction to  the                                                                    
bill. He thought  some of the nuances would  be discussed in                                                                    
subsequent hearings. He thanked the presenters.                                                                                 
Senator Kaufman relayed that  he appreciated the committee's                                                                    
SB  25  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
HOUSE BILL NO. 125                                                                                                            
     "An Act relating to trapping cabins on state land; and                                                                     
     relating to trapping cabin permit fees."                                                                                   
2:29:04 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster  noted that the  committee would  be hearing                                                                    
HB 125 and invited the sponsor to introduce the bill.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  TOM MCKAY,  SPONSOR, introduced  HB 125.  He                                                                    
read the sponsor statement (copy on file):                                                                                      
     Alaska has a rich history of trapping which far pre-                                                                       
     dates the founding of our state. Trappers who run long                                                                     
     lines in  remote areas need  cabins for  shelter. These                                                                    
     cabins  are  small,  basic  domiciles  which  serve  as                                                                    
     shelter in  Alaska's harsh weather  conditions. Roughly                                                                    
     three decades  ago, trapper  advocates worked  with the                                                                    
     legislature to  implement a  program which  allowed for                                                                    
     the construction  of trapper cabins on  state lands (AS                                                                    
     38.95.075   AS 38.95.085).  Over the years, issues have                                                                    
     been  identified   with  that  program   which  require                                                                    
     statutory amendments.  This bill would  address several                                                                    
     problems  relating   to  Trapping   Cabin  Construction                                                                    
     Permits (TCCP).                                                                                                            
     HB 125  updates the  outdated statutes  associated with                                                                    
     receiving a  TCCP and incorporates the  use of existing                                                                    
     trapping cabins  on State  lands. Current  Statute does                                                                    
     not allow  the Department to issue  permits for already                                                                    
     constructed cabins.  This bill would close  that gap so                                                                    
     all permits  will be issued as  Trapping Cabin Permits,                                                                    
     covering both construction of a  new cabin and allowing                                                                    
     the continued use for an existing cabin.                                                                                   
     As Alaskans,  we have a unique  respect for traditional                                                                    
     ways  of  life, such  as  trapping.  I urge  my  fellow                                                                    
     colleagues  of the  33rd  legislature  to support  this                                                                    
     legislation to help Alaskan trappers.                                                                                      
2:32:19 PM                                                                                                                    
TREVOR JEPSEN,  STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TOM  MCKAY, introduced                                                                    
the   PowerPoint  presentation   "HB   125  Trapping   Cabin                                                                    
Construction Permit  Reform" dated  April 27, 2023  (copy on                                                                    
file). He  began on slide  2 and defined trapping  cabins as                                                                    
small and  basic domiciles along  trap lines that  were used                                                                    
for temporary  shelter. The necessity  of the cabins  had to                                                                    
be proven before  the cabins would be permitted  to be built                                                                    
on  state  lands.  Trapping  cabin  permits  were  currently                                                                    
issued  under AS  38.95.075 and  AS 38.95.080.  The statutes                                                                    
were  crafted over  40 years  ago. He  argued that  statutes                                                                    
created  unnecessary  confusion  in permitting  process  and                                                                    
restricted the  Department of  Natural Resources  (DNR) from                                                                    
permitting cabins under certain scenarios.                                                                                      
Mr.  Jepsen  continued   to  slide  3  to   expand  upon  AS                                                                    
38.95.075. He  explained that  the statute  demonstrated the                                                                    
process  for  DNR to  issue  permits  for cabins  that  were                                                                    
already in existence. The individual  seeking the permit had                                                                    
to  prove that  the cabin  had  been in  regular use  before                                                                    
August 1,  1984. Issues would  arise when cabins  had lapsed                                                                    
in ownership, use, or were  abandoned. He explained that DNR                                                                    
had  seen a  pattern wherein  individuals wanted  to utilize                                                                    
trapping cabins, but  DNR was not able to  issue permits due                                                                    
to the limitations of the statute.                                                                                              
Mr.  Jepsen  advanced  to  slide  4  to  further  detail  AS                                                                    
38.95.080,  which authorized  DNR to  issue permits  for the                                                                    
construction   of  new   trapping   cabins.   He  read   the                                                                    
requirements for a permit for a new trapping cabin:                                                                             
     1. The  person must  have an established  trapline with                                                                    
     proof of regular use;                                                                                                      
     2.  The  person  must  have a  trapline  of  sufficient                                                                    
     length to justify the need for cabin construction                                                                          
Mr.  Jepsen continued  that AS  38.95.080 also  outlined the                                                                    
responsibility   of  the   department  as   well  as   other                                                                    
requirements   and    restrictions   for    trapping   cabin                                                                    
construction permits.                                                                                                           
Mr. Jepsen moved to slide 5  and explained the ways in which                                                                    
HB 125 would  address the problem. The bill  would revise AS                                                                    
38.95.080 to  include all  trapping cabin  permit situations                                                                    
and  repeal  AS 38.95.075.  It  would  allow DNR  to  permit                                                                    
existing cabins  on state  lands. It  would also  update the                                                                    
application  fee  schedule  and  set  all  related  fees  in                                                                    
statute  and provide  additional clarity  on the  permitting                                                                    
process.  He  noted  that  the  bill was  the  result  of  a                                                                    
collaboration  between the  House Resources  Committee, DNR,                                                                    
and the Alaska Trappers Association (ATA).                                                                                      
2:36:05 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Foster  suggested  that  Mr.  Jepsen  provide  the                                                                    
sectional analysis.                                                                                                             
Mr. Jepsen read through the sectional (copy on file):                                                                           
     Sec.  1 Conforming  change to  incorporate  the new  AS                                                                    
     38.95.080(g)  (section 6  of this  bill)  into the  fee                                                                    
     schedule regulations under AS 38.05.850(a).                                                                                
     Sec. 2  & 3 Restructures  the existing  AS 38.05.080(a)                                                                    
     and  (b), which  authorize  the  commissioner to  issue                                                                    
     trapping cabin permits. Also  clarifies who is entitled                                                                    
     to a permit for existing cabins on state lands.                                                                            
     Sec. 4 Clarifies the conditions  for a permit that must                                                                    
     be   included   in  regulations.   This   clarification                                                                    
          1. Providing more guidance on permit renewals                                                                         
          2. Detailing the process for multiple cabins                                                                          
          under the same permit                                                                                                 
          3. Specifying a procedure for unowned cabins                                                                          
          4. Setting statutory fee limits for the permits                                                                       
          5. Making several technical drafting changes                                                                          
     Sec. 5  Provides more explicit language  to ensure that                                                                    
     a  use permit  cannot  be  misinterpreted as  providing                                                                    
     ownership  rights   or  preference  rights   to  future                                                                    
     Sec. 6 Creates two new subsections, which:                                                                                 
          1. Further  define the nonexclusive nature  of the                                                                    
          permit  by stating  that  the  director may  issue                                                                    
          multiple  trapping cabin  permits for  the use  of                                                                    
          the same cabin.                                                                                                       
          2. Bars the department from charging additional                                                                       
          land use fees for the use or construction of a                                                                        
          trapping cabin.                                                                                                       
     Sec.  7   Conforming  and  technical  changes   to  the                                                                    
     definitions section.                                                                                                       
     Sec. 8  Repeals AS  38.95.075 (permits  for the  use of                                                                    
     trapping  cabins) to  conform  to the  changes made  in                                                                    
     this bill  and to remove  the outdated August  1, 1984,                                                                    
     reference point.                                                                                                           
Co-Chair Foster  added that there was  a representative from                                                                    
ATA online  for questions.  He asked  if the  individual had                                                                    
any comments.                                                                                                                   
2:38:50 PM                                                                                                                    
RANDALL  ZARNKE,  PRESIDENT,  ALASKA  TRAPPERS  ASSOCIATION,                                                                    
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), relayed  that the process by                                                                    
which trapping cabins were permitted  was created by ATA and                                                                    
DNR and it  seemed to have worked well for  nearly 40 years.                                                                    
He recently started to hear  complaints from ATA members who                                                                    
were unable  to get their  permits renewed. He  relayed that                                                                    
DNR  staff reported  that the  original legislation  did not                                                                    
authorize the  department to renew permits.  The association                                                                    
worked in  collaboration with DNR  to craft HB 125  to solve                                                                    
the  problem. The  bill would  bring stability  back to  the                                                                    
process as well  as increase the original  permit fee, which                                                                    
ATA supported. He emphasized that  not all trappers needed a                                                                    
cabin,  but cabins  were essential  for  trappers in  remote                                                                    
locations.  The  bill would  benefit  both  urban and  rural                                                                    
trappers. He warned that if  the bill did not pass, trappers                                                                    
with existing cabins would be  left "in limbo" and without a                                                                    
process by which cabin permits could be renewed.                                                                                
Co-Chair  Foster thanked  Mr.  Zarnke. He  added that  there                                                                    
were other  testifiers available  if members  had additional                                                                    
2:42:04 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Hannan  noted that  Section  1  of the  bill                                                                    
would incorporate the new AS  38.95.080(g) into the existing                                                                    
AS 38.05.850(a).  She understood  that most of  the existing                                                                    
statute related  to permitting new trapping  cabins for use.                                                                    
The  current  statute  gave permit  preference  for  use  to                                                                    
uplands users  on the  track of  tidelands. She  was curious                                                                    
how the  statutory preference would  intersect with  the new                                                                    
proposed statute relating to trapping  cabins. She was under                                                                    
the  impression that  the cabins  in question  were trapping                                                                    
cabins, not  tideland cabins or  duck hunting  cabins. There                                                                    
had   been  some   conflicts  about   duck  hunting   cabins                                                                    
encroaching  on state  tidelands  and she  wanted to  ensure                                                                    
that the bill focused purely on trapping cabins.                                                                                
Mr. Jepsen responded that the only  change made by HB 125 in                                                                    
Section  1  was  adding  AS  38.95.080(g),  which  were  the                                                                    
stipulations  listed in  Section 6  relating to  permit fees                                                                    
and  allowing multiple  permits to  be issued  for the  same                                                                    
cabin.  The bill  did not  change any  other language  in AS                                                                    
Representative Stapp referred  to language on page  3 of the                                                                    
bill disallowing  shelters exceeding  400 square feet  to be                                                                    
built without  authorization. He  asked Mr. Jepsen  if there                                                                    
were existing  structures that  could theoretically  be used                                                                    
as trapping  cabins but could  not be permitted  because the                                                                    
cabins were built without prior authorization.                                                                                  
Mr.   Jepsen  responded   that   the   issue  mentioned   by                                                                    
Representative Stapp  was one of  the reasons for  the bill.                                                                    
There were  cabins on state  lands that trappers  would like                                                                    
to use  but were unable to  due to the current  statute. The                                                                    
bill would  allow previously built cabins  that exceeded 400                                                                    
square  feet to  be permitted  for trapping  as long  as the                                                                    
individual applying for  the permit did not  build the cabin                                                                    
without  prior  authorization.   He  added  that  unutilized                                                                    
trespassing cabins that  could be a liability  for DNR could                                                                    
be eligible for trapping cabin permits.                                                                                         
Representative   Stapp   understood   that   if   a   person                                                                    
constructed  a  cabin  without authorization  prior  to  the                                                                    
bill, there was no way the cabin could be permitted.                                                                            
Mr. Jepsen  responded in the affirmative.  He clarified that                                                                    
if an  individual built a  cabin without  authorization, the                                                                    
individual could not get a trapping cabin permit.                                                                               
Representative Cronk  asked Mr. Jepsen for  a description of                                                                    
"proof of regular use."                                                                                                         
Mr.  Jepsen  responded  that there  were  multiple  ways  to                                                                    
provide proof  of regular use,  such as a  verified trapping                                                                    
license issued  by the  Department of  Fish and  Game (DFG),                                                                    
fur  receipts,  or  proof  of  income  related  to  trapping                                                                    
Representative Cronk thanked the  sponsor for bringing forth                                                                    
the legislation.                                                                                                                
2:47:22 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson understood  that  if  there was  a                                                                    
trespassing  cabin  constructed  on   state  land  that  was                                                                    
greater   than  400   square  feet,   the  cabin   would  be                                                                    
permittable  under the  bill.  He asked  Mr.  Jepsen if  his                                                                    
understanding  was   correct.  He  recalled  that   DFG  was                                                                    
previously involved in trying  to eliminate shoreline cabins                                                                    
on  hazardous sites  and all  of  the cabins  that were  not                                                                    
eliminated were  grandfathered in to permitting  in 2022. He                                                                    
understood that HB  125 would take similar  actions, but the                                                                    
cabins  would not  be privately  held. He  thought the  bill                                                                    
would  "bless"   some  cabins  that  would   not  have  been                                                                    
previously authorized in the past.                                                                                              
Mr. Jepsen  responded in the  affirmative. If the  cabin was                                                                    
built without  authorization and was abandoned  or there was                                                                    
a lapse in  ownership, the cabin would  be permittable under                                                                    
the bill.  He understood that DNR  would like there to  be a                                                                    
party  responsible  for  some  of the  cabins.  He  asked  a                                                                    
representative from DNR to confirm his understanding.                                                                           
MEGAN  HILLGARTNER,  DIVISION  OF  MINING  LAND  AND  WATER,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT  OF   NATURAL  RESOURCES   (via  teleconference),                                                                    
responded that Mr.  Jepsen was correct and  DNR would prefer                                                                    
that any existing and unauthorized  cabins be captured under                                                                    
a permit. The bill would  give the department the ability to                                                                    
ensure that  existing cabins would be  accounted for through                                                                    
an authorization.                                                                                                               
Representative  Josephson  asked  Ms. Hillgartner  what  the                                                                    
department was doing to address future unauthorized cabins.                                                                     
Ms. Hillgartner  responded that the department  did its best                                                                    
to  work  with  trappers  that  had  interest  in  utilizing                                                                    
existing  cabins or  seeking authorization  for unauthorized                                                                    
cabins. For example,  other entities such as  DFG had sought                                                                    
use of existing  trespass cabins on state  lands. There were                                                                    
also other ways in which a  cabin could be permitted under a                                                                    
different   authority,  such   as  a   guide  program.   The                                                                    
department made efforts to permit  the cabins under existing                                                                    
authorizations, but it  had removed some of  the cabins that                                                                    
were not permittable. It would  be helpful to the department                                                                    
to  have  the  ability  to  permit cabins  for  the  use  of                                                                    
2:50:56 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Hannan  relayed  that  the  bill  referenced                                                                    
"regular  use" and  on page  3, line  5, the  term "periodic                                                                    
use" was used. She wanted  to ensure that an individual with                                                                    
a ten-year  trapping cabin permit  would not be  required to                                                                    
use the  cabin every  year in  order to  prove it  was being                                                                    
utilized  on a  regular  or periodic  basis.  She asked  Ms.                                                                    
Hillgartner to  provide DNR's definition of  regular use and                                                                    
periodic use.  She asked how many  trapping cabins currently                                                                    
Ms.  Hillgartner  replied  that   there  were  currently  83                                                                    
existing trapping  cabins on state  lands. She  relayed that                                                                    
regular use required  that there be evidence  that a trapper                                                                    
was   using  the   cabin   in   association  with   trapping                                                                    
activities. If an individual was  issued a ten-year trapping                                                                    
cabin permit, the department would  determine regular use by                                                                    
examining elements  such as proof  of income as a  result of                                                                    
the trapping.  The department would not  necessarily mandate                                                                    
that there  be proof  of annual  use of a  cabin, but  for a                                                                    
trapper to  provide proof that  the cabin was being  used in                                                                    
association with trapping activities  during the term of the                                                                    
Representative Hannan asked for  clarification that to prove                                                                    
regular  use,  there  would  need to  be  evidence  that  an                                                                    
individual used the cabin throughout  the permit period, but                                                                    
there  did not  need to  be  evidence of  selling furs.  She                                                                    
shared that the trapper she  worked with would hold furs for                                                                    
several years  if the price  of fur declined and  would sell                                                                    
the furs again once the price increased.                                                                                        
Ms. Hillgartner would verify the information and follow up.                                                                     
Representative  Cronk  commented  that  he  had  a  personal                                                                    
conflict  because  he  held  a permit.  He  shared  that  he                                                                    
submitted  ceilings receipts  to DFG  as proof  that he  was                                                                    
using the cabin.  Many cabins were in  remote locations: one                                                                    
of his cabins  was 14 miles off the road  and another was 26                                                                    
miles  off the  road. It  could become  a safety  issue when                                                                    
trappers  were  in  remote locations  and  the  temperatures                                                                    
dropped and individuals  had nowhere to go  to seek shelter.                                                                    
He  relayed  that the  cabins  could  also be  for  survival                                                                    
2:55:21 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Tomaszewski  asked about the  requirement for                                                                    
a trap line to be sufficient  length to justify the need for                                                                    
the  cabin. He  asked  Mr. Jepsen  for  more information  on                                                                    
sufficient length.                                                                                                              
Mr. Jepsen  responded that  sufficient length  was generally                                                                    
regarded as  any length that  would be hazardous to  run the                                                                    
trapline  without   the  presence   of  a   nearby  shelter.                                                                    
Sufficient  length was  subjective and  dependent upon  each                                                                    
trapper's   individual    circumstances,   topography,   and                                                                    
weather. The  main deciding factor  was whether it  would be                                                                    
hazardous to run the trapline  without the availability of a                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster  noted that the  meeting was intended  to be                                                                    
an introduction  of the bill.  He asked if the  bill sponsor                                                                    
had any closing comments.                                                                                                       
Representative McKay thanked the committee for its time.                                                                        
HB  125  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
HOUSE BILL NO. 178                                                                                                            
     "An Act relating to village safe water and hygienic                                                                        
     sewage disposal facilities."                                                                                               
2:56:58 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Foster relayed  that the  committee would  hear an                                                                    
introduction on HB 178.                                                                                                         
PAUL LABOLLE, STAFF,  REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, introduced                                                                    
HB 178.  The bill  would provide  statutory guidance  to the                                                                    
Commissioner    of   the    Department   of    Environmental                                                                    
Conservation (DEC)  in administering the Village  Safe Water                                                                    
Program  (VSWP) and  direct the  commissioner to  prioritize                                                                    
VSWP  projects based  on need.  Historically, the  amount of                                                                    
funding  available  for  sanitation  improvements  in  rural                                                                    
Alaska had been inadequate to  meet the identified needs. As                                                                    
a  result,  funding agencies  had  developed  a criteria  to                                                                    
determine   eligibility  and   priority   for  the   limited                                                                    
resources  available. The  Best  Practices  Score (BPS)  was                                                                    
created   as  the   metric   through   which  to   determine                                                                    
Mr.   LaBolle  continued   that   now  that   Infrastructure                                                                    
Investment  and  Jobs  Act   (IIJA)  had  provided  adequate                                                                    
funding, HB 178  would ensure that the  communities with the                                                                    
worst  water and  sewer infrastructure  would  be the  first                                                                    
communities  served  by  VSWP.  Based  on  the  Spring  2023                                                                    
scoring cycle,  95 of 196  communities in the state  did not                                                                    
meet the minimum threshold for  funding through VSWP. If the                                                                    
BPS  continued  to  be used  to  determine  eligibility  and                                                                    
priority, the state  ran the risk of IIJA  funds expiring or                                                                    
being  reallocated   elsewhere  before  projects   could  be                                                                    
confirmed. He  relayed that BPS  remained an  effective tool                                                                    
to identify the strengths and  weaknesses of a community and                                                                    
to  identify  ways   to  assist  a  community.   It  was  an                                                                    
assessment tool to  ensure that the state was  doing its job                                                                    
and to  identify communities in  need, but not as  a barrier                                                                    
to  deny funding  to  communities in  need.  He shared  that                                                                    
Section  14.20  of VSWP  required  the  state to  develop  a                                                                    
capacity   development   strategy  for   the   Environmental                                                                    
Protection Agency  (EPA) that outlined  the methods  used to                                                                    
identify and  prioritize communities in need.  He emphasized                                                                    
that VSWP  did not indicate  that assessment should  be used                                                                    
as a hurdle to eligibility.                                                                                                     
Co-Chair  Foster   commented  that  rural   legislators  had                                                                    
expressed frustration  over the  years regarding the  way in                                                                    
which smaller  communities received funding for  water. Some                                                                    
communities had no piped water  or sewer and were considered                                                                    
unserved communities.  He clarified  that the  bill mandated                                                                    
that a community's need be  placed as a higher priority than                                                                    
a   community's  capacity   to  maintain   a  system.   Some                                                                    
communities  did not  score well  on maintenance  abilities,                                                                    
but the  need for  water and sewer  was high.  He understood                                                                    
that  it  was a  problem  that  some communities  could  not                                                                    
maintain a system, but accessibility  was more important. He                                                                    
emphasized the importance of  capturing the incoming federal                                                                    
IIJA funds.                                                                                                                     
3:02:33 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Edgmon asked  Mr. LaBolle  to provide  information                                                                    
about the crafting of the bill.                                                                                                 
Mr.  LaBolle responded  that  Co-Chair  Foster's office  had                                                                    
collaborated with  Co-Chair Edgmon's  office as well  as the                                                                    
Alaska  Municipal  League  (AML) and  Alaska  Native  Tribal                                                                    
Health Consortium (ANTHC)  to find a workable  way to change                                                                    
the  metrics that  determined project  prioritization. There                                                                    
were   presently  three   main  portions   that  went   into                                                                    
prioritization:   needs,   BPS,    and   the   affordability                                                                    
framework. The  bill would make  needs the  highest priority                                                                    
rather  than  considering  it   equally  amongst  two  other                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster  added that  awarded funds  were based  on a                                                                    
Rural Utility  Business Advisor (RUBA) scoring  system. If a                                                                    
community  received a  low score,  it would  not be  awarded                                                                    
funds and  would not  be able  to afford  a water  and sewer                                                                    
Mr.  LaBolle commented  that testifiers  were available  for                                                                    
3:04:45 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Hannan  understood   that  RUBA   left  out                                                                    
communities  that  were most  in  need  and the  bill  would                                                                    
change the  way in which funds  were awarded to be  based on                                                                    
need. She asked how need was defined or measured.                                                                               
Co-Chair Foster  responded that need could  be determined by                                                                    
whether  a   community  had  a  piped   water  system.  Some                                                                    
communities had  part of  a water or  sewer system,  but the                                                                    
area was not  fully serviced. He thought the  easiest way to                                                                    
determine  need was  whether there  was a  fully operational                                                                    
water and sewer system.                                                                                                         
Mr. LaBolle responded that the  department conducted a needs                                                                    
assessment   which  was   already   part   of  the   ongoing                                                                    
prioritization  process. The  bill would  move the  existing                                                                    
needs metric to the top.                                                                                                        
Representative  Hannan  asked if  need  was  on the  scoring                                                                    
rubric already. She  asked how the high need  areas would be                                                                    
distinguished  from  one  another. She  clarified  that  she                                                                    
supported the bill.                                                                                                             
Mr.  LaBolle responded  that the  needs  assessment was  not                                                                    
included within  BPS. He explained  that BPS was  a separate                                                                    
sheet that dealt with managerial capacity.                                                                                      
Representative  Hannan replied  that she  presumed that  the                                                                    
department  would know  that  she wanted  to  see the  needs                                                                    
assessment and  ensure that the least  served villages would                                                                    
be the highest priority.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair  Foster noted  that he  would provide  at the  next                                                                    
meeting a list  of served and unserved  communities in order                                                                    
to provide members with a sense of the needs in the state.                                                                      
Representative Coulombe commented that  her concern was that                                                                    
the   department  had   shared  that   it  had   experienced                                                                    
difficulty  changing  the  scoring  system  because  of  the                                                                    
requirements  of  the  federal  government.  She  wanted  to                                                                    
ensure  that  the changes  would  not  be in  conflict  with                                                                    
federal requirements.                                                                                                           
Mr. LaBolle deferred the question to the department.                                                                            
3:09:52 PM                                                                                                                    
RANDY  BATES, DIRECTOR,  DIVISION  OF  WATER, DEPARTMENT  OF                                                                    
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, relayed  that the department did                                                                    
not  take a  position on  the bill.  He emphasized  that the                                                                    
department  wanted  to  ensure   that  communities  had  the                                                                    
opportunity  to  take  advantage   of  IIJA  funds.  It  was                                                                    
important to  assist rural communities in  any way possible.                                                                    
Although  the department  did  not take  a  position on  the                                                                    
bill,  it  recognized the  desire  to  prioritize needs  for                                                                    
eligible  communities. He  did not  think that  the bill  as                                                                    
worded would accomplish the desired goal.                                                                                       
Representative  Coulombe asked  if  the  state's ability  to                                                                    
utilize federal funds would be  impacted if the bill were to                                                                    
Mr.  Bates   responded  in  the  negative.   The  department                                                                    
intended  to use  all of  the  available funds.  He did  not                                                                    
think any  community would be  left behind. It was  also the                                                                    
desire  of the  department  to ensure  that the  communities                                                                    
would be able to safely  maintain and operate the facilities                                                                    
in the long term.                                                                                                               
Representative Coulombe asked if  the score card required by                                                                    
the  federal government  came  from  the federal  government                                                                    
itself or from the department.                                                                                                  
Mr.  Bates  replied  that  SDWA required  that  there  be  a                                                                    
capacity assessment  in place prior to  the construction and                                                                    
operation of a facility. The  department had utilized BPS as                                                                    
one of  the assessment  tools that  would predict  whether a                                                                    
community could  safely maintain and operate  a facility. If                                                                    
the department were to abandon  BPS and eliminate a capacity                                                                    
assessment, certain funding would be jeopardized.                                                                               
3:14:18 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Stapp thought  it was a smart  idea to ensure                                                                    
that  high  needs  communities  received  important  utility                                                                    
systems. He was  concerned that the facilities  would not be                                                                    
maintained  after  the  IIJA money  had  lapsed  if  certain                                                                    
assessments were abandoned.                                                                                                     
Mr.  Bates responded  that the  existing scoring  system was                                                                    
necessary  to determine  capacity. It  determined whether  a                                                                    
community could  safely maintain and operate  a facility and                                                                    
would give the  state the opportunity to  assist a community                                                                    
to  build  its strengths  and  work  towards developing  the                                                                    
capacity to maintain and operate a facility.                                                                                    
3:16:02 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Edgmon referred  to  Section 14.20  of VSWP  which                                                                    
detailed  state  authority  for new  systems.  There  was  a                                                                    
requirement  to  comport  with   respect  to  each  national                                                                    
primary drinking  water regulation  in effect. He  asked Mr.                                                                    
Bates if  the bill would  make it easier for  the department                                                                    
to  compete  for  federal  funding   and  make  Alaska  more                                                                    
competitive. He relayed  that in the past, he  had worked as                                                                    
a regulator  in a state  agency and the power  of regulatory                                                                    
authority allowed a  regulator to take a  simple sentence in                                                                    
statute   and  derive   significant   meaning  through   the                                                                    
regulatory process. He  asked if the VSWP  could be expanded                                                                    
upon  to meet  the  frustration and  concern  about lack  of                                                                    
facilities through the regulatory process.                                                                                      
Mr.  Bates  asked  Co-Chair Edgmon  to  restate  the  second                                                                    
portion of his question.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair  Edgmon  responded  that  he  understood  that  the                                                                    
statutory addition  to VSWP would  give the  department some                                                                    
additional  tools  to  enhance  the  scoring  mechanism.  He                                                                    
thought that the scoring mechanism  needed to advance to the                                                                    
"next  level"  in  order  to  take  advantage  of  potential                                                                    
federal funding. He asked if his understanding was correct.                                                                     
Mr. Bates responded that the  department recognized that the                                                                    
common denominator was BPS and  the managerial and financial                                                                    
scores were  particularly on a  decline. The  department had                                                                    
been working on  a plan to reverse the  declining scores. In                                                                    
2022, the Division of Community  and Regional Affairs (DCRA)                                                                    
gained   two  additional   staff,  $500,000   in  additional                                                                    
funding, and  a federal  grant recognizing that  DCRA needed                                                                    
to   approve  service   to  the   communities  specific   to                                                                    
addressing declining scores in  the managerial and financial                                                                    
categories. There  was a new  grant awarded to AML  that was                                                                    
also  dedicated  to  addressing  the  declining  scores.  He                                                                    
emphasized   that   the   department  had   recognized   BPS                                                                    
challenges and the state had  committed resources to address                                                                    
the problems. It was not  the intention of the department to                                                                    
keep  systems  at  bay,  but   to  help  communities  become                                                                    
eligible  under  the  scoring  rubric.  The  department  had                                                                    
affirmed  its  commitment  to evaluating  the  scores  in  a                                                                    
transparent   and  public   manner   by  soliciting   input,                                                                    
evaluating information, and determining  the efficacy of the                                                                    
scores. He  emphasized that the department  intended to take                                                                    
full  advantage of  the IIJA  funding; however,  communities                                                                    
had to  be in a  position to accept  infrastructure projects                                                                    
in  order   for  the  facilities   to  operate   safely  and                                                                    
3:23:06 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Edgmon  thought the  discussion was  important. The                                                                    
circumstances in some smaller  communities in the state were                                                                    
challenging.  He  thought  there were  several  requirements                                                                    
that went beyond  the letter of the law. He  was not hearing                                                                    
whether  the bill  would provide  more statutory  "cover" to                                                                    
evolve the scoring  system. He wanted to make  sure that the                                                                    
bill would provide a tool  to the department that would help                                                                    
it  better serve  communities  in need.  He  wanted to  give                                                                    
constituents the  assurance that  the issue was  being taken                                                                    
CARRIE  BOHAN,  FACILITIES   PROGRAM  MANAGER,  DIVISION  OF                                                                    
WATER, DEPARTMENT OF  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, noted that                                                                    
the   description  of   the   project  evaluation   criteria                                                                    
described previously [by Mr. Bates]  was not fully accurate.                                                                    
She would  be happy  to provide  the correct  information to                                                                    
the committee. The first category  upon which the department                                                                    
determined  priorities was  potential  health benefits,  and                                                                    
the  second looked  at the  current  level of  service in  a                                                                    
community. The  first two categories  made up 50  percent of                                                                    
project  scoring.  The  third  category  was  capacity.  She                                                                    
clarified  that  affordability  was not  an  eligibility  or                                                                    
scoring  criteria, but  a  simple tool  to  help inform  the                                                                    
department  on the  anticipated fees.  The department  would                                                                    
also discuss  with a community  its plan for  sustaining the                                                                    
system  and determine  whether the  community could  partner                                                                    
with entities  to compensate for higher  costs that citizens                                                                    
could not afford.                                                                                                               
Co-Chair Edgmon  commented that there were  communities that                                                                    
could not currently  meet the criteria and  it was important                                                                    
to help the communities meet  the criteria. He asked whether                                                                    
the bill would make it more difficult to achieve the goal.                                                                      
Mr.  Bates responded  in the  negative. The  bill would  not                                                                    
hurt the  department's process or prevent  it from achieving                                                                    
the goal of helping communities  meet the criteria. It would                                                                    
affirm much of the process that was already in place.                                                                           
3:29:47 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Edgmon  asked  what  it would  take  to  help  the                                                                    
department and  if it would  need any  statutory assistance.                                                                    
There was  about $250 million  available in  federal funding                                                                    
for  which the  state would  not qualify  under the  current                                                                    
Mr. Bates  replied that  it was important  to know  that the                                                                    
$250 million  in funding  was not VSWP  funding, but  was in                                                                    
the capital  budget as Indian Health  Service (IHS) funding.                                                                    
He relayed  that IHD did  not consider capacity  in awarding                                                                    
funding  for  infrastructure  to communities  in  need.  The                                                                    
department  needed  help  with assisting  the  community  in                                                                    
developing  managerial and  technical capacity  in order  to                                                                    
become  eligible  through  the   scoring  metric.  It  would                                                                    
require the  community and the department  to collaborate to                                                                    
ensure  that the  community would  be able  to independently                                                                    
operate  and   maintain  a  water   and  sewer   system.  He                                                                    
emphasized that  the department was  making changes  and was                                                                    
looking for support in its  continued efforts towards making                                                                    
additional changes  on the delivery of  service. Communities                                                                    
needed  to  know what  the  required  steps were  to  become                                                                    
successful  and it  was the  department's responsibility  to                                                                    
educate the communities.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair  Edgmon  explained  that  the  frustration  he  was                                                                    
feeling was  directed towards not  having a  larger picture.                                                                    
He was aware  that the problem was  capacity-driven in rural                                                                    
Alaska.  He  suggested  that  the   bill  contain  a  larger                                                                    
context.  There  were many  communities  in  the state  that                                                                    
needed  water  and sewer  systems  and  millions of  dollars                                                                    
would soon be  available to construct the system  and he had                                                                    
not  heard enough  conversation about  it. He  thought there                                                                    
was much more to be discussed.                                                                                                  
Co-Chair  Foster  commented  that he  wished  that  everyone                                                                    
could spend  time in a  village to understand  the desperate                                                                    
need  for  safe water  systems.  He  thought that  if  state                                                                    
workers  were  subjected  to  a  honey  bucket  system,  all                                                                    
workers would  immediately push  for implementing  water and                                                                    
sewer  systems in  villages. He  thought  that everyone  was                                                                    
trying to accomplish the same  thing and he thought that the                                                                    
bill would  do a lot  of good.  He thought that  people were                                                                    
beginning to understand the level  of frustration felt about                                                                    
the system.  It had been  popular to say that  honey buckets                                                                    
belonged in  museums for over  thirty years and  nothing had                                                                    
changed. He  thought some progress  was being made  but many                                                                    
people   were  frustrated   that   the   progress  was   not                                                                    
substantial enough. A  lack of water and sewer  was a third-                                                                    
world situation,  and he thought  it was an  important issue                                                                    
in  the state.  It was  prudent  to take  advantage of  IIJA                                                                    
money  and he  did  not  want to  miss  the opportunity.  He                                                                    
understood  the  need for  capacity  and  suggested that  it                                                                    
might   be  the   responsibility  of   the  state   to  help                                                                    
communities reach  capacity. He  relayed that  life, safety,                                                                    
and health  were three of the  most important constitutional                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster noted that Mr.  Bates mentioned that IHS did                                                                    
not consider capacity. He would  like Ms. Francine Moreno to                                                                    
provide additional  information on the topic.  He asked what                                                                    
the  legislature  could  do  to   help  the  department.  He                                                                    
wondered if need was placed above capacity by ANTHC.                                                                            
3:38:10 PM                                                                                                                    
FRANCINE   MORENO,   DIRECTOR,  RURAL   UTILITY   MANAGEMENT                                                                    
SERVICES,  ALASKA  NATIVE   TRIBAL  HEALTH  CONSORTIUM  (via                                                                    
teleconference), responded  that the  IIJA funds  included a                                                                    
criteria for capacity based on needs.                                                                                           
Co-Chair Foster  thought that  Mr. Bates  had said  that IHS                                                                    
did not  consider capacity.  He asked  Mr. Bates  to explain                                                                    
what he meant in more detail.                                                                                                   
Ms. Bohan responded  that it was her  understanding that IHS                                                                    
used  the Sanitation  Deficiency  System  (SDS) to  evaluate                                                                    
projects. She  was a member  of the scoring  committee along                                                                    
with  IHS,   EPA,  and  other  federal   agencies  that  was                                                                    
responsible  for  determining   eligibility  for  both  VSWP                                                                    
funding  and  IHS  money. There  was  a  capacity  indicator                                                                    
included  in   the  efforts  of  the   committee  which  was                                                                    
developed in  collaboration with the agencies.  The tool was                                                                    
stripped  of its  indicators about  a  year prior  and as  a                                                                    
result,  all communities  received the  same score  from the                                                                    
capacity indicator  and what remained  was scoring  based on                                                                    
Representative  Galvin   was  interested  in   the  capacity                                                                    
building element.  She had read  that at least  $3.5 billion                                                                    
would  be  available  to  develop  new  infrastructure.  She                                                                    
relayed  that when  the state  was building  its educational                                                                    
system,  there were  no schools,  teachers,  or housing  for                                                                    
teachers  and that  many people  would agree  that it  was a                                                                    
capacity  issue.   She  emphasized   that  the   state  made                                                                    
education happen because it was  important and it was in the                                                                    
state constitution.  She was unsure  if the word  "need" had                                                                    
to  be  included  in  the   bill  in  order  to  stress  the                                                                    
importance. She  asked Mr.  Bates if any  of the  IIJA funds                                                                    
bound for  the state  would assist  in building  capacity in                                                                    
order to  initiate projects. If  the funds would  not assist                                                                    
in building capacity,  it needed to be addressed  as soon as                                                                    
3:42:36 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Bates  responded that ongoing education  and support was                                                                    
a  subsidized system  and it  was a  different process  than                                                                    
community  infrastructure. He  shared that  $2.1 billion  of                                                                    
the $3.5 billion  in IIJA funds for  new infrastructure were                                                                    
allocated to Alaska.  Once the water and  sewer systems were                                                                    
built, the  federal money  would cease and  it would  be the                                                                    
responsibility of  the communities  to maintain  and operate                                                                    
the  systems  sustainably.  The   state  would  not  provide                                                                    
subsidies for  the ongoing maintenance and  operation of the                                                                    
systems  nor would  the federal  government. He  wondered if                                                                    
the  142 residents  of Wales,  Alaska would  be capable  and                                                                    
willing to  pay the required fee  of over $300 per  month to                                                                    
maintain a new  water and sewer system. He  thought it would                                                                    
be a challenge to the community  to pay for the service on a                                                                    
monthly basis.  The department  did not  have appropriations                                                                    
for  the ongoing  operation  and  maintenance for  community                                                                    
Representative  Galvin  asked  if  there  were  suppositions                                                                    
being made about  what the citizens of Wales  would or would                                                                    
not do. She  suggested there might be other ways  to pay for                                                                    
the system,  such as through  tribal organizations.  She did                                                                    
not think it should be a barrier to building a system.                                                                          
Mr.  Bates  responded that  the  department  was not  making                                                                    
suppositions or  guesses. The  department would  ensure that                                                                    
the system would be supported  by the community and that the                                                                    
residents were  willing and able to  financially support the                                                                    
system.  He  shared  that  the   Wales  residents  had  been                                                                    
surveyed and  Ms. Bohan  could speak to  the results  of the                                                                    
Ms.  Bohan added  that there  was planning  document created                                                                    
which detailed the potential expenses  for a water and sewer                                                                    
system in  Wales. The survey  asked community  members about                                                                    
their  willingness to  pay over  $300  per month  for a  new                                                                    
system and none  of the respondents were willing  to pay the                                                                    
amount.  Similar  planning   documents  included  a  section                                                                    
related to  sustainability and the department  found that it                                                                    
could often come to a  logical engineering solution, but the                                                                    
sustainability   solution   was  often   marginalized.   The                                                                    
department    decided   to    separate   engineering    from                                                                    
sustainability   and  consider   the  two   separately.  The                                                                    
department   would  collaborate   with   the  community   on                                                                    
potential sustainability  plans and determine if  there were                                                                    
regional partnerships  available to assist it  in paying the                                                                    
rate for the new systems.                                                                                                       
Representative   Galvin   appreciated  the   response.   She                                                                    
presumed that  the idea of  a monthly fee must  feel foreign                                                                    
to  some  communities. She  thought  there  was a  clash  of                                                                    
cultures,  and  the  fees  might  seem  impossible  to  some                                                                    
citizens, particularly if the  community was not cash-based.                                                                    
She had visited  many villages in the state  and often slept                                                                    
on  the  floor  of  a library  or  another  public  building                                                                    
because  there was  no housing  available. She  thought that                                                                    
villages were  being set  up to  fail by  demanding capacity                                                                    
prior to the  approval of a project. The issue  needed to be                                                                    
approached in a different way.                                                                                                  
Mr. Bates  responded that one of  the challenges experienced                                                                    
by  many  rural  communities  was  that  there  was  not  an                                                                    
industry  in the  local area.  There were  opportunities for                                                                    
other regional  partners to subsidize  the rates  to operate                                                                    
and  maintain   a  new  water  and   sewer  system.  Without                                                                    
subsidies, community  members would  be responsible  for the                                                                    
entire  cost of  a  system. He  assured  the committee  that                                                                    
there  were  regional programs  that  could  assist in  some                                                                    
3:51:05 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Hannan  noted that  there were a  few letters                                                                    
in the  committee packet detailing  the opinions  of several                                                                    
rural communities. There was a  letter from the community of                                                                    
Bethel   (copy  on   file)   that   described  a   potential                                                                    
"bureaucratic   nightmare"   involving   significant   score                                                                    
reductions from  one year to  the next despite  submitting a                                                                    
nearly identical  plan. She wondered  if the  department had                                                                    
the opportunity  to respond to  Bethel and whether  it would                                                                    
include the committee in  its correspondence. She understood                                                                    
that  Bethel had  the capacity  for a  system and  was still                                                                    
struggling  with  receiving  a  passable  score  within  the                                                                    
scoring  rubric.  There  was an  additional  letter  in  the                                                                    
packet (copy on  file) from DEC Commissioner  Jason Brune to                                                                    
the Alaska Bush  Caucus that stated that in  the Spring 2023                                                                    
scoring  cycle,  95 of  196  communities  did not  meet  the                                                                    
minimum  threshold;   however,  not  all   communities  were                                                                    
seeking  funding for  water  and  sewer infrastructure.  She                                                                    
asked why  a community would be  scored even if it  were not                                                                    
seeking funding.                                                                                                                
Mr. Bates  responded that the department's  responses to the                                                                    
letters  were included  in  the packet  as  well (copies  on                                                                    
file).  The  letter  from  the city  of  Bethel  included  a                                                                    
particularly   significant   amount  of   information.   The                                                                    
department had a draft response  specific to one of Bethel's                                                                    
projects and it  had responded to many  of Bethel's concerns                                                                    
largely related  to the managerial and  financial components                                                                    
of  the  scoring  tool.  He  shared that  DEC  had  not  yet                                                                    
coordinated  a   response  with   its  sister   agency,  the                                                                    
Department of  Commerce, Community and  Economic Development                                                                    
(DCCED). He relayed  that he would share the  final draft of                                                                    
the response with the committee once it was drafted.                                                                            
3:54:58 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Bohan responded  that previous to 2015,  the similar but                                                                    
more arduous capacity assessment tool  RUBA was in place and                                                                    
the scoring took  place after funding was  awarded. The tool                                                                    
created some issues in that  communities often took years to                                                                    
work  with  RUBA  to demonstrate  the  minimum  capacity  to                                                                    
release the  funds, which generally  had a  limited lifespan                                                                    
of around  five years. The  funds were  then held up  by one                                                                    
community  which prevented  another community  that had  the                                                                    
capacity  to  move forward  from  utilizing  the funds.  The                                                                    
department intentionally changed the  order of operations so                                                                    
that  the   scoring  effort  would   occur  in   advance  of                                                                    
allocating funding.   The new ordering would  also provide a                                                                    
more current idea of a  community's capacity and the ways in                                                                    
which it  could use assistance  from the state.  The program                                                                    
was voluntary  and a  community could choose  to sit  out if                                                                    
was  not interested  in  participating.  The department  was                                                                    
concerned that if the data  were collected only once a year,                                                                    
there  could be  a drastic  decline in  capacity before  the                                                                    
next  assessment.   The  department  thought   that  scoring                                                                    
communities twice a year would  be more helpful and accurate                                                                    
than scoring  communities once a year.  The department would                                                                    
conduct one  assessment for  informational purposes  and the                                                                    
other would be to determine  eligibility. If a community had                                                                    
met the  minimum score, it  could submit an  application. It                                                                    
was  possible  for the  department  to  see  only 10  to  20                                                                    
applications for construction every year.                                                                                       
Mr. Bates  thought it  was important  for the  department to                                                                    
recognize and own  that there were areas  of improvement. He                                                                    
was happy to provide  additional comments or have additional                                                                    
conversations with committee members.  He emphasized that it                                                                    
was a  goal of the  department to provide  excellent service                                                                    
to the state's rural communities.                                                                                               
Co-Chair Foster  understood that the issue  was challenging.                                                                    
He thought  that food  and shelter  were top  priorities for                                                                    
human beings  and the  following priorities  were sanitation                                                                    
and  clean  water. He  realized  that  it was  important  to                                                                    
ensure that systems were being  maintained for the long term                                                                    
and that it could be  difficult. He found it concerning that                                                                    
many community members  did not have basic  water and sewer.                                                                    
He went to  27 villages in the prior summer  and many people                                                                    
washed their  hands repeatedly in  the same bucket  of water                                                                    
for days  on end.  He thought that  need was  more important                                                                    
than the capacity to maintain a system.                                                                                         
4:00:12 PM                                                                                                                    
HB  178  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda  for the following day's                                                                    
4:00:39 PM                                                                                                                    
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 25 Explanation of Changes version A to version B.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
SB 25
SB 25 Sectional Analysis version B.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
SB 25
SB 25 Sponsor Statement version B.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
SB 25
HB125 Sectional Analysis ver P 4.17.23.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 125
HB125 Summary of Changes (R to P) 4.17.23.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
SRES 1/24/2024 3:30:00 PM
HB 125
HB125 Sponsor Statement 4.17.23.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 125
HB125 Presentation 4.27.23.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 125
HB 178 VSW NEW FN DEC Water 042723.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 178
SB 87 Sectional Analysis version A.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
SB 87
SB 87 Sponsor Statement version A.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
SB 87
SB 87 Support rec'd by 04.17.23.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
SB 87
HB 178 VSW DEC Water 042723.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 178
HB178 Supporting Document-Bush Caucus letter to DEC.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 178
HB178 Supporting Document-DEC Response to Chuloonawick.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 178
HB178 Supporting Documents-best practices scoring criteria.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 178
HB178 Supporting Documents-Chuloonawick Letter to DEC.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 178
HB178 Supporting Documents-City of Bethel letter to DEC.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 178
HB178 Supporting Documents-DEC Affordability Framework.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 178
HB178 Supporting Documents-DEC response to the Bush Caucus re VSW OM BP.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 178
HB178 Supporting Documents-Resolution 22-20 In Support of Reform of the State's Best Practices Program.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 178
HB178 Sponsor Statment.pdf HFIN 4/27/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 178