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
+= HB 26 COUNCIL FOR ALASKA NATIVE LANGUAGES TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 26(TRB) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 93 LUMBER GRADING PROGRAM TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
+ SB 87 LUMBER GRADING PROGRAM TELECONFERENCED
Moved SB 87 Out of Committee
+ HB 125 TRAPPING CABINS ON STATE LAND TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ SB 25 REPEALING FUNDS, ACCOUNTS, AND PROGRAMS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
*+ HB 178 VILLAGE SAFE WATER FACILITIES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
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                                                                    
eligibility.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                    
elements.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                    
system.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  LaBolle commented  that testifiers  were available  for                                                                    
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                    
pass.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                    
sustainably.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                    
seriously.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                    
system.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                    
priorities.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                    
need.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                    
possible.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                    
systems.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                    
survey.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                    
areas.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                    
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda  for the following day's                                                                    
meeting.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                

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