Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
04/20/2023 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Investing in Water/sewer Infrastructure in Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 20, 2023
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative CJ McCormick, Chair
Representative Kevin McCabe, Vice Chair
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Justin Ruffridge
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Donna Mears
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Josiah Patkotak
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): INVESTING IN WATER/SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE IN
ALASKA
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
RANDY BATES, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced the PowerPoint presentations on
water and sewer infrastructure and answered questions during the
presentations.
SANDRA MOLLER, Director
Division of Community and Regional Affairs
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Investing in Water and Sewer Infrastructure in Alaska" and
answered questions during the presentations.
CARRIE BOHAN, Program Manager
Facilities Services
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint presentation on the
Village Safe Water program.
FRANCINE MORENO, Director,
Rural Utility Management Services
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint presentation on
rural sanitation funding, health impacts, and sustainability
efforts.
DAVE BEVERIDGE
Alaska Native Health Consortium
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the Alaska
Native Health Consortium's presentation.
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony and answered questions
during the presentations.
PHIL ZAVADIL, City Manager
City of St. Paul
St. Paul Island, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony during the meeting.
PETER WILLIAMS, City Manager
City of Bethel
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony during the meeting.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:26 AM
CHAIR CJ MCCORMICK called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:03 a.m.
Representatives McCormick, McCabe, McKay, Ruffridge, and Mears
were present at the call to order. Representative Himschoot
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): Investing in Water/Sewer Infrastructure in
Alaska
PRESENTATION(S): Investing in Water/Sewer Infrastructure in
Alaska
8:04:12 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that the only order of business would
be the presentations on investing in the water and sewer
infrastructure in Alaska.
8:05:01 AM
RANDY BATES, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation, introduced the presenters for the
presentations on water and sewer infrastructure in Alaska.
8:05:20 AM
SANDRA MOLLER, Director, Division of Community and Regional
Affairs (DCRA), Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development, co-presented a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Investing in Water and Sewer Infrastructure in Alaska" [hard
copy included in the committee packet]. She highlighted that
the three takeaways from the presentation should be: 1) DCRA is
the only division mentioned in the Constitution of the State of
Alaska, which reinforces the importance of communities in the
state. 2) On behalf of DCRA, she expressed the belief in local
self-governance. 3) Operations and Maintenance Best Practices
("Best Practices") scores reflect the community status measured
against the metric. She began the presentation on slide 2,
titled "RUBA - Rural Utility Business Advisor Program." She
stated that RUBA's goal is to increase the managerial and
financial capacity of rural water and wastewater utility
providers. She stated that DCRA works on these projects in
conjunction with the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC). She continued discussing the role of DCRA in community
self-governance.
MS. MOLLER moved to slides 3 and 4, titled "Investing in Alaska
- Impacts" and discussed RUBA's program function and funding.
She moved to slide 5, showing a map that listed the unserved and
underserved communities in the state. She expressed the
importance of federal funding, as it will be a "game changer"
for getting underserved and unserved communities access to water
and sewer. She added that the funding will also add two
additional staff to DCRA to support this effort. She moved to
slide 6, titled, "Local Government Assistance and RUBA." She
pointed out that out of the 400 communities in the state, 350
are engaged with DCRA on local government issues, with 196 of
these participating in Best Practices.
8:09:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned why Talkeetna is not shown on
the map of unserved and underserved communities on slide 5.
MR. BATES replied that in statute the definition has limited
communities to 1,000 individuals, or less. He expressed the
understanding that Talkeetna has a slightly higher population
than this.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that this is
in the process of changing. He pointed out that Talkeetna is a
village on the road system with a serious E. coli problem.
8:10:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned whether any Southeast Alaska
communities are on the map.
MS. MOLLER responded that these communities would have to meet
the 1,000 individuals, or less, threshold.
CARRIE BOHAN, Program Manager, Facilities Services, Department
of Environmental Conservation, stated that slide 5 is only
showing unserved and underserved communities in Alaska, meaning
that these communities do not have piped water and sewer. She
stated that all the communities in Southeast have this. She
suggested that the communities could still be eligible for
funding, but they are not recognized on the slide.
8:12:00 AM
MS. MOLLER pointed out the types of services DCRA provides to
local governments, as seen on the left side of slide 6. She
moved to slide 7 and gave a break down of RUBA, pointing out
that there are seven regional offices that work one-on-one,
providing small group assistance and utility management courses.
She moved to slide 8, which depicts RUBA's staff. She stated
that there are some staff vacancies, as support staff for the
federal IIJA (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) will be
needed. She moved to slide 10 and pointed out the list of
entities that collaborate with RUBA.
MS. MOLLER moved to slide 11, titled "Approach to Assisting
Communities," which provided a list of the different activities
RUBA does to assist communities. She stated that a community
must request assistance.
8:15:42 AM
MS. MOLLER, in response to a request for more information on
Best Practices scores, pointed out that this will be addressed
on slide 16. She continued to slide 12, titled "FY23 RUBA
Travel Activity (Completed and Planned)." A map on the slide
shows the communities that RUBA staff has worked in. She moved
to slide 13 and pointed out the communities where RUBA has
training activities. On slide 14 and 15, she explained RUBA's
role in Best Practices scoring. She stated that through DCRA,
RUBA involvement is a component of the total score. She
discussed the history of RUBA.
MS. MOLLER pointed out that DCRA oversees the financials and
management of the water utilities, while DEC oversees operator
training and other technical work. She commented that DCRA and
DEC collaborate regularly, scoring twice a year to assess
operations and maintenance capacity of rural water and
wastewater utilities. She stated that the scores are used to
determine eligibility and prioritization of sanitation projects
and more. She added that Best Practices is not the only metric,
as sanitation is not the only assistance that DCRA provides. In
example, she indicated that how the community is running its
local government would also be considered on the scoring.
MS. MOLLER moved to slide 16 which showed an example of the Best
Practices scoresheet. She stated that this form is for the
technical side and was developed by DEC. She stated that DEC
works with communities throughout the year in order for scores
to be increased. She added that there is also a handbook to
help local governments on the scoring.
8:20:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned who would determine the scores.
MS. MOLLER responded that there are assigned local government
specialists (LGSs) in each of the communities. At the scoring
time, the LGS would score communities using the scoresheet, as
seen on the slide. Once this is done, DCRA would do an internal
review, of which she described as a robust process. Once the
review is done, these results are reported to DEC. She
suggested that the handbook helps the process stay consistent.
In response to a request for an example using Bethel, she stated
that DCRA would report this back to the committee. She
expressed agreement that the process can vary by community, and
DCRA would work with DCE on any subjectivity present.
MS. MOLLER moved to slide 17 and showed an example of the
scoresheet that DCRA uses. She stated that DCRA works year-
round with communities, helping them to increase scores.
8:23:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that communities in Southeast
Alaska have reported that they are pleased with the support from
DCRA. She pointed to the scoresheet on the slide and stated
that some communities in Southeast would not have the technical
support required. She questioned whether technical support
could be shared among communities.
MS. MOLLER deferred to DEC.
MS. BOHAN expressed uncertainty concerning the question. She
stated that there is an entire program dedicated to operator
certification. She expressed the opinion that there would need
to be documentation on each certified operator for a
partnership. She stated that the title of the Best Practices
program was chosen to represent the goal of having the highest
bar, giving the communities something to strive for. She
expressed the opinion that no community would be able to hit
each of the high bars.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT pointed out that in Prince of Wales, it
is only an hour drive between communities, so they could serve
as a backup for each other; however, the water systems may not
be identical. She expressed the understanding that the state
may not want to invest in infrastructure that has no support.
8:27:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE referred to the comment that high
scoresheets may not be something rural areas can achieve. He
requested a further discussion of this. He noted that a
community that scores average on each item would not reach the
required score of 60 out of 90 points.
MS. BOHAN advised that the tool has a total of 100 points. She
stated that the Best Practices tool had replaced a previous tool
in 2015, which had 27 indicators with only a "yes" or "no"
answer. She stated that using this tool communities had to have
a "yes" answer on each question to receive funding. She
discussed the problems with this system. She stated that in
creating the Best Practices tool there were several goals,
including simplifying the criteria and having tiers, as opposed
having only one answer. She explained that this is why
achieving the highest bar would not be realistic.
8:31:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE questioned how often utilities are
scored and how often training is offered.
MS. MOLLER replied that the scores are handled twice a year.
She stated that the training is offered year-round. She stated
that there is a variety of training, with the most popular being
the financial management training. She added that upon request
the training could be offered in a hub community. She further
addressed other financial services offered. She stated that
there is no cost for the training and reimbursements are offered
to communities.
8:33:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned how the Alaska Native Village
and Rural Communities Grant Program would work with this. He
questioned whether this grant program also uses a scoring tool.
MR. BATES replied that DEC would answer this question during its
presentation.
8:34:40 AM
MS. MOLLER moved to slide 17, titled "Managerial & Financial
Criteria - DCRA." She pointed out the levels and metrics on the
example scoresheet. She stated that these criteria tend to be a
trouble area for communities, and she cited staff turnover as
one contributing factor. She pointed out the headings and how
communities can gain points under these. She moved to slide 18,
titled "Resources, Support and Tracking." She pointed out the
online database, as it provides information on each community.
On slide 19, she pointed out the RUBA Utility Advisory Hub Site,
which is an online resource for training and publications.
MS. MOLLER moved to slide 20, titled "Best Practices Dashboard,"
which shows the overall program and the average scoring for all
communities participating in RUBA. She stated that the two
following slides show examples of scoring from two communities.
She stated that these show a snapshot of the previous six
months. She further described the information shown on the
slides. She concluded the presentation on slide 23, which
provides links to additional resources.
8:40:44 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK thanked the presenter and reminded the committee
of the time.
8:41:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE questioned the scoring sheet and gave
an example. He expressed the opinion that the scoring sheet
prioritizes three main areas: preventative maintenance, budget,
and revenue. He suggested that if a community scores high on
these three areas, it would be ranked high. He questioned this
assessment and whether the scoresheet would need an update.
MS. MOLLER replied that in certain areas of scoring "easy"
points can be made, such as having staff go to training. She
expressed agreement on the three areas mentioned, as these three
areas are best practices in general. She observed that small
incremental points can also add up.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked for an average cost of the
utility in a rural area.
MS. MOLLER deferred to DEC.
8:46:27 AM
MS. BOHAN expressed uncertainty concerning the specific number,
adding that the rates in rural communities are substantially
higher. She cited that the City of Wales has a user rate of
$300 per month. She compared this with the rate in Juneau of
around $30 a month. She expressed concern that communities
could be setup for a system that they cannot sustain.
MR. BATES reminded the committee that the Best Practices tool
not only works as a reminder for the communities, but also for
the state, for what it takes to have safe and sustainable
operations of the facilities. He expressed agreement that the
user rates are challenging but emphasized that this is about
setting communities up for success.
8:48:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE referenced a resolution from the City of
St. Paul, which discusses the challenges with the scoring. The
challenges included inconsistencies, pointing out a lack of
clarity, variable metrics, incongruent financial software,
discrepancies with the wastewater certifications, and more. He
suggested that the scoring method needs to be investigated, as
this problem is pervasive.
8:51:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned how the rates would be set.
MS. MOLLER replied that DCRA has a rate-setting tool. She
stated that unlike electric utilities, these water utilities
have no requirements for rate studies.
8:53:14 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:53 a.m. to 8:54 a.m.
8:54:52 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that next would be the presentation
from DEC.
8:55:02 AM
MR. BATES provided opening remarks. He stressed the importance
of water and sewer infrastructure and the sanitary conditions
this would provide. He stated that the foundation of Safe Water
for Villages program is based on continued funding. He referred
to the funding from IIJA, which would provide critical funds for
upgrades to systems in rural Alaska. He stated that DEC and
DCRA are committed to providing these funds, along with their
own funds, to build and improve the water and sewer
infrastructure for rural communities and to assist them in
maintenance for the long term.
MR. BATES referred to the question of capacity assessment. He
stated that this has translated to the Best Practices scoring
tool because the EPA has delegated primacy and enforcement of
the Safe Drinking Water Act to DEC. This requires the primacy
agency to ensure that all the new or modified water systems have
the technical, financial, and managerial capacity to comply with
the regulations before operations commence. He said that all
the funding agencies, which are extensive, have determined the
criteria for eligibility for the limited resources available.
He noted that because of IIJA funding, there would be more
resources available.
MR. BATES continued that in 2015 the Best Practices tool was
created by the partners, and it has been used since this time.
He stated that this tool provides the federal requirement of
assessment of the technical, financial, and managerial
components for the communities. He stressed that the tool is a
critical component for the ongoing success of projects. He
maintained that by federal law, the Best Practices tool cannot
be terminated, even for a year. He reiterated that the scoring
is also critical for entities that help communities to
understand how to operate these multimillion-dollar facilities
safely and sustainably for the long term. He reiterated the
importance of using the IIJA funding in this way.
9:01:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed the understanding that the
Best Practices model cannot be abandoned; however, she
questioned whether it could be more individualized.
MR. BATES replied that a dashboard is used as a step in the
process, giving a snapshot of what a community's score is.
After the score is given, he said, the next step would be
notifying the community how it can improve the score. He
pointed out that this process creates a two-way system; the
community needs to know the steps, while the entities, like DEC,
need to know how to assist.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referred to what else the state could
be doing, while allowing communities to maintain local control.
MR. BATES replied that about three years ago it was recognized
that communities were having a decline in scores, and DEC has
been working with DCRA to identify a path forward to assist
communities. He stated that DCRA has been successful in getting
additional staff and more travel to assist communities, not only
with scores, but for local government success.
MS. MOLLER added that exit surveys are being used after training
to help gather information on what communities need. She stated
that the question at the end of the day always concerns what is
best for the community.
9:07:14 AM
MS. BOHAN began the presentation on the Village Safe Water
program [hard copy included in the committee packet]. She
pointed out the mission of the program, as seen on slide 2,
which is to support rural communities in their efforts to
develop sustainable sanitation facilities. She stated that
state statutes guide this mission, and this is where the
definition of "eligible communities" would be found. She stated
that the programs two major functions are providing funding
planning and project management. She discussed these functions
in further detail.
MS. BOHAN moved to the next slide and expressed the
understanding that every need is compelling; however, needs
exceed the resources available. She stated that having equity
is a challenge. She pointed out that IIJA has allocated $3.5
billion to the Indian Health Service (IHS), and $2.1 billion of
this has been related to Alaska projects. This is primarily
concerning providing pipe service to underserved communities.
She continued, discussing DEC's partnerships, as listed on the
slide. She stated that there are monthly meetings to work on
the issues in a collaborative manner.
MS. BOHAN moved to slide 4 to explain the two primary funding
allocation processes, with one being managed by the Village Safe
Water program. She added that this funding is for capital
improvement project. She stated that the other allocation is
funding for the sanitary systems, which is managed by the Alaska
Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC). She stated that the
groups listed on the previous slide also meet and collaborate on
the funding issues. She stated that if a village is allocated
funding, the agency assigned to the village would take
responsibility, but the village would still be eligible for
funding from other sources. She moved to slide 5 and showed a
visual of the substantial increase in funding sources. She
moved to slide 6, which showed a map of the underserved and
unserved communities. She described that the unserved
communities do not have a water system, while the underserved
communities have a haul system for water and wastewater.
9:14:18 AM
MS. BOHAN, in response to a committee question, replied that the
projects on the slide are actively underway and have been funded
for design and construction. She moved to slide 7, titled
"Average Project." She stated that the average price to install
a pipe water and sewer system in rural communities is around $1
million per home. She stated that this has been a historic
challenge because there has not been enough money to install
these systems, but with the federal funding there is an
opportunity. In response to a committee question, she stated
that after the capital cost of the project is covered through
grant funding, the $300 per month mentioned earlier would be the
price for ongoing operations and maintenance. She added that
when water must be heated and circulated to prevent freezing,
this would create a larger energy cost.
9:18:15 AM
MS. BOHAN, in response to a committee question, replied that
there is a section later in the presentation that addresses
DEC's undertaking of an in-home water reuse system. She added
that other resources, such as wells and sceptics, have also been
considered; however, often this is not available in the ground
water. She stated that in providing in-home water and sewer,
there may be several options for each community.
9:20:26 AM
MR. BATES recognized the time constraint and ceded DEC's time at
the table for other presenters.
CHAIR MCCORMICK expressed appreciation for this consideration.
9:21:49 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:21 a.m. to 9:23 a.m.
9:23:13 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that the final presentation would be
from ANTHC.
9:23:51 AM
FRANCINE MORENO, Director, Rural Utility Management Services,
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, provided a PowerPoint
presentation on rural sanitation funding, health impacts, and
sustainability efforts [hard copy included in the committee
packet]. She pointed out the "once in a lifetime" federal
funding of $3.5 billion for IHS sanitation nationwide. She
stated that this was the result of the deficiencies found in
2021. She pointed out the $1.9 billion that has been allocated
to Alaska. She further discussed the funding requirements, as
seen on the slide.
MS. MORENO moved to slide 3 and showed a map of communities with
IHS sanitation needs. She pointed out the distinctions between
the unserved and underserved communities. She noted that these
communities would receive over 75 percent of the funding. She
stated the cost of this was unfeasible for IHS funding in the
past, but IIJA would remove the cost cap per home as a barrier.
She continued discussing the details on meeting the IHS funding
criteria, referring to the maps on slide 4 and slide 5.
MS. MORENO, in response to a committee question, stated that the
state has a website with the affordability framework for any
community.
9:29:11 AM
MS. MORENO moved to slide 6 and continued the discussion on Best
Practices scores. She suggested that if Best Practices had been
used when the majority of the rural water systems were built,
these systems would have never been built.
MS. MORENO paraphrased slide 7, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Health Impact of Safe Drinking Water
"Water-Borne Diseases"
Access to safe drinking water provides:
.notdef 67% reduction in diarrheal morbidity
.notdef 58% fewer clinic visits from sanitation related
disease
.notdef 55% reduction in overall child mortality
MS. MORENO, in response to a committee question, stated that
"piped" means moving water into the house and not a community
well.
MS. MORENO moved to slide 8, titled "Impact of Improved
Sanitation." She pointed out that germs spread when hands are
not washed, adding that during the COVID-19 pandemic some
communities were not able to do this. She quoted statistics on
how washing hands reduces the transmission of diseases. She
moved to slide 9, titled "Impact on Infants." She commented on
the high percentage of babies with respiratory infections in
communities with a lower percentage of access to water. She
stated that this could now be addressed with the federal
funding, and she described it as, "a once in a lifetime
opportunity."
MS. MORENO moved to slide 10 and discussed the current IHS
efforts for sustainability. She stated that these efforts
include the Alaska Rural Utility Collaborative, the Rural Energy
Program, remote monitoring, and virtual operator training.
9:33:23 AM
MS. MORENO paraphrased from slide 11, titled "Alaska Rural
Utility Collaborative Expansion," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Empowers communities to sustainably provide safe water
and sanitation services through effective management,
operations and maintenance.
• Current membership of 26 communities, 1 pending
• Expanding to add 30 additional communities (unserved
priority) • Voluntary membership
• Advisory Committee driven, self-governance
• Community leadership and operator capacity building
• Sustainable rates and budgets
• Cash reserves for emergencies and costly replacement
parts
• Bulk purchasing lowers costs, economies of scale
• Increased operator retention, benefits and pay
• Operator exchange program supporting each other
• Better than average best practice scores Success
outcomes: 25/26 fully funded reserves, 105% average
collections, all operators receive in-person or formal
operator training, more reliable service, 85% (22/26)
meet BP scores
MS. MORENO moved to slide 12 and discussed the high energy cost
in rural communities. She stated that these costs often make up
40 percent of operations and maintenance budgets. She stated
that the ANTHC Rural Energy Program was established in 2011 to
implement energy reduction projects, such as installing LED
light bulbs, providing operator training, installing heat
recovery systems, installing wind-to-heat projects, installing
solar panels, and installing micro-wind turbines. She stated
that through these efforts there has been an ongoing annual
savings of $4.7 million. She added that the annual energy
savings per home is estimated at $609.
MS. MORENO moved to slide 13 and stated that the Remote
Monitoring System is critical in order to protect the water and
sewer infrastructure. She stated that this tool is installed to
monitor a system's temperature, flows, on-and-off timing of the
pump, and heat tape. She added that the tool has helped
partners monitor the system's operations through a dashboard,
which would send alerts before there is a system wide emergency.
She stated that this also alerts to inefficient energy use. She
indicated that the goal is for all rural, off-road communities
have the Remote Monitoring System by 2025.
MS. MORENO paraphrased from slide 14, titled "Virtual Operator
Certification Training," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
ANTHC's Tribal Water Center (TWC) began providing
virtual Water Plant Operator Certification training in
2020
• 2022/2023 training season:
• 7 free trainings
• 114 students
• 42 communities
• 68% of students successfully passed
• Since 2020, the program has hosted 273 students and
has a pass rate of 78%
• Students are proctored while taking their relevant
State of Alaska Certification exams within their
community at the conclusion of each course
MS. MORENO, in closing, stated that ANTHC's vision is that
"Alaska's Native people are the healthiest people in the world."
She thanked the committee.
9:42:09 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK thanked the presenter.
9:42:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned how the Remote Monitoring
System works.
MS. MORENO responded that the Remote Monitoring system is a
system that anyone can see throughout the state, which includes
the many partners. She stated that the alert system will send a
text message to those who need the alerts and can respond.
9:43:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY requested information on the required
permitting and other issues, such as permafrost.
CHAIR MCCORMICK expressed uncertainty that the question would be
germane to the presentation.
MS. MORENO responded that, in regard to permafrost, systems
built above ground would be expensive, as they would need to be
able to keep water flowing. She stated that for water plants
built on permafrost, as the permafrost melts shifting would
occur within the buildings. She stated that ANTHC has a patent
on a thermo-siphon project, where the ground would be refrozen,
stopping the water plant from shifting. She stated that ways to
mitigate climate change are being investigated. She expressed
uncertainty concerning the federal permits.
9:46:54 AM
DAVE BEVERIDGE, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium,
expressed uncertainty concerning the referenced permits.
CHAIR MCCORMICK stated that Mr. Bates could be called back at
another time to address the permitting question.
9:47:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE referenced the affordability
conversation and stated that this comes back to energy costs.
He questioned what could be done to drive down these costs. He
questioned what would happen if in the future this is still not
affordable.
MS. MORENO replied that for communities within the Rural Energy
Program, collections are critical, and homes would be shut off
from service for nonpayment. She reiterated that 40 percent of
costs are the energy costs. She suggested that this could be
decreased by the installation of renewable energy, making water
and sewer rates more affordable.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE commented that the natural gas pipeline
discussion has always omitted Western Alaska. He questioned
whether this has ever been addressed.
MS. MORENO expressed uncertainty concerning the question, but
she added that any way the cost of energy could be reduced in
rural Alaska would be considered.
9:50:42 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK introduced the next guest.
9:51:32 AM
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), deferred to other testifiers.
9:52:16 AM
PHIL ZAVADIL, City Manager, City of St. Paul, provided testimony
concerning the presentations. He addressed that he has been
interested in the program for years and expressed appreciation
to the entities involved. He suggested that the Village Safe
Water program be reformed or eliminated. He referenced the many
communities that have water and sewer needs. He stated that how
business has been done needs to change so the IIJA money can be
taken advantage of. He stated that could be done by employing a
team of engineers to evaluate the needs. He expressed the
opinion that the Best Practices program has been punitive for
communities, and he referenced St. Paul. He maintained that the
communities with the greatest need will never score well. He
stressed that for the health and safety of these communities,
this must be done better.
9:55:18 AM
PETER WILLIAMS, City Manager, City of Bethel, stated that for
the last seven years he and his staff have tried to satisfy the
requirements for the Best Practices scoring. He expressed
frustration with communication with the program. He stated that
often the wait for the scores are around four months. He
expressed dissatisfaction that a call would not be made sooner,
providing the community with information on what it needs to do.
He suggested that many issues could be resolved with an email.
He expressed frustration concerning the complexity of the
financials that have to be submitted. He pointed out that the
city's budget is online; therefore, it should not have to be
submitted. He suggested that more back-and-forth communication
could resolve many issues concerning the scoring. He referenced
the variability of the scoring, even when the same information
had been submitted in the past. He also expressed frustration
with the grant-loan process, as the cost of the projects are
still out of reach. He expressed concern on the extent of the
[IIJA funding].
10:01:11 AM
MR. ANDREASSEN referenced the slides [from ANTHC's presentation]
and the communities that would not receive funding for their
water and sewer needs because of low Best Practices scores. He
expressed the opinion that this represents "cries for help." He
referenced the federal law that requires communities to show
sustainability before they can receive funding for water and
sewer, and he questioned any leeway the state may have. He
argued that sustainability [scoring] should include support, as
the Best Practices scoring does not account for support that
partners provide. He opined that accounting for the support
that partners may provide, the scores could be reworked, and
communities would qualify for the funding.
MR. ANDREASSEN, concerning Best Practices, questioned whether
the community or the state would provide the definition of
affordability. He stated that AML has passed a resolution which
suggests changes to the Best Practices program. He offered to
provide this to the committee. He suggested that it has been
known that the federal funding was coming, and he opined that
the details still have not been addressed. He argued that now
is the time to address the criteria. He listed the support
entities and noted their hard work, stating that this will take
a consolidated and intentional effort.
10:05:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that the slides Mr. Andreassen
referenced are missing communities, as these slides represent
Native villages off the road system. He listed the missing
communities, including Tok, Buffalo Soapstone, Prudhoe Bay, and
Talkeetna. He argued that these communities are just outside of
the 1,000-population requirement. He acknowledged that these
communities are on the road system and not Native, but he argued
that these communities are also suffering the same problems. He
suggested an "all-inclusive approach" from AML.
MR. ANDREASSEN replied that the goal is to improve public health
and the living conditions for all Alaskans. He said, "Drawing a
line in the sand based on population or scores makes that very
difficult."
10:06:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE questioned communities that are
[scoring] well and could be used as a model.
MR. ANDREASSEN mentioned that Toksook Bay has a score of 100, as
DCRA has worked one-on-one with the community to determine the
cause of [infant mortality] in the area. He recommended the
adage that communities should "teach to the test," and follow
the guidelines. He expressed the opinion that some communities
have become models, and others could follow these examples, and
this includes what partners could do to help.
10:08:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned whether there is a
correlation between population and the communities that do not
score higher on Best Practices.
MR. ANDREASSEN expressed uncertainty, adding that he is not the
best to speak to this.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that this may have to do with
affordability, but also the capacity of communities. She
reiterated that communities should be empowered to make their
own decisions; however, communities should also be provided
support. She questioned at what point state assistance would be
overstepping its bounds. She suggested that "shoveling money
their way" is not the answer.
MR. ANDREASSEN suggested that providing money is not a "bad
thing." He pointed out that community assistance has decreased
by 50 percent, and during this time Best Practices scores went
down. He suggested that these are connected. He expressed the
opinion that funding is part of the answer and partners should
come in when there is limited capacity. He concluded that
sustainability is a community effort and resources from the
outside should compliment what is at the local level.
10:11:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY referenced the DEC letter dated April 7,
[2023] and requested that the letter be put into the record. He
noted that the letter references permitting for the projects.
10:12:28 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK provided closing comments.
10:13:26 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 10:13 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ANTHC Presentation on Rural Sanitation Funding Sustainability Efforts HCRA 04.20.23.pdf |
HCRA 4/20/2023 8:00:00 AM |
ANTHC |
| DEC VSW Overview HCRA 04.20.23.pdf |
HCRA 4/20/2023 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/25/2023 8:00:00 AM HCRA 5/2/2023 8:00:00 AM |
DEC |
| DCCED DCRA RUBA PPT HCRA Ver 4.0 Final 04.20.23.pdf |
HCRA 4/20/2023 8:00:00 AM |
DCCED |