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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB26 | |
| SB87 | |
| SB25 | |
| HB125 | |
| HB178 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 178 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 27, 2023
1:42 p.m.
1:42:14 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:42 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Laura Achee, Staff, Senator Jesse Bjorkman; Matthew Harvey,
Staff, Senator James Kaufman; Trevor Jepsen, Staff,
Representative Tom McKay; Paul LaBolle, Staff,
Representative Neal Foster; Carrie Bohan, Facilities
Program Manager, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation; Representative Andi Story,
Sponsor; Senator Jesse Bjorkman, Sponsor; Senator James
Kaufman, Sponsor; Alexei Painter, Director, Legislative
Finance Division; Representative Tom McKay, Sponsor; Randy
Bates, Director, Division of Water, Department Of
Environmental Conservation.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Jeremy Douse, Northern Regional Forester, Division of
Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of Natural
Resources; Randall Zarnke, President, Alaska Trappers
Association, Fairbanks; Megan Hillgartner, Division of
Mining Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources;
Francine Moreno, Director, Rural Utility Management
Services, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium.
SUMMARY
HB 26 COUNCIL FOR ALASKA NATIVE LANGUAGES
HB 26 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1 (DCCED).
HB 93 LUMBER GRADING PROGRAM
HB 93 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
SB 87 LUMBER GRADING PROGRAM
SB 87 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal note: FN1 (DNR).
HB 125 TRAPPING CABINS ON STATE LAND
HB 125 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 25 REPEALING FUNDS, ACCOUNTS, AND PROGRAMS
SB 25 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 178 VILLAGE SAFE WATER FACILITIES
HB 178 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 26
"An Act renaming the Alaska Native Language
Preservation and Advisory Council as the Council for
Alaska Native Languages; and relating to the Council
for Alaska Native Languages."
1:43:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDI STORY, SPONSOR, introduced HB 26 and
explained that she brought forward the bill on behalf of
the Alaska Native Language Preservation and Advisory
Council (ANLPAC). The changes proposed by the bill were
simple but would be significant improvements for the
council. The first proposed change was a name change
simplifying the council's name to the Council for Alaska
Native Languages. The bill would also expand the council's
membership from five voting members to seven voting members
and would update the co-official languages of Alaska, which
unintentionally excluded some indigenous languages.
Co-Chair Foster asked if there were questions from the
committee.
Representative Stapp asked if there could be any other
Alaska Native languages that were potentially being
overlooked.
Representative Story responded that there was an Alaska
Native language summit sponsored by the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) that occurred
earlier in the day and many of the council members were at
the summit. It was her understanding that all of the
languages would be recognized if the bill were to pass.
1:46:11 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony for HB 26. He
commented that he had heard significant support for the
bill. Although there were not many testifiers online, there
was not a lack of support. The lack of testifiers only
indicated that it was a simple and straightforward bill.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony. He noted that
interested individuals could submit written testimony and
offered instructions on how to do so.
Representative Tomaszewski explained Fiscal Note (FN) 1 by
the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development (DCCED) [control code gBxUP]. The $10,000
allocation was for the Division of Community and Regional
Affairs (DCRA).
Co-Chair Foster relayed that he would entertain a motion to
move the bill if it were the desire of the committee.
1:48:19 PM
Representative Tomaszewski MOVED to REPORT HB 26 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 26 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1 (CED).
SENATE BILL NO. 87
"An Act relating to a lumber grading training program
and lumber grading certificates; relating to use of
lumber graded and certified by a person holding a
lumber grading training program certificate; and
providing for an effective date."
1:49:06 PM
Co-Chair Foster explained that SB 87 was the companion bill
to HB 93, sponsored by Representative Jesse Sumner. The
committee heard HB 93 on April 14, 2023.
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, SPONSOR, introduced SB 87. The bill
would allow for local lumber millers and saw millers to
receive training from the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) through the University of Alaska (UA) to grade and
assess the lumber and subsequently sell the lumber to the
end user to build residential homes.
Co-Chair Foster asked if committee members had questions.
Representative Ortiz asked whether the bill addressed how
an individual could become a lumber grader. He recently had
a constituent call him and ask how to become a lumber
grading trainer.
Senator Bjorkman responded that the bill would initiate a
training program.
1:51:47 PM
Representative Galvin relayed that she was supportive of
the bill and had already co-sponsored the House companion
bill. She asked if the bill would act as a stepping stone
to the next level of a grading program that would be
inclusive of products that could be used for larger houses.
There was a great need for housing in the more urban areas
and wondered if the bill would be expanded upon.
Senator Bjorkman responded that the reason the restrictions
limiting locally graded lumber were in place was in
correspondence to the strength testing that lumber was
required to undergo by lumber grading agencies. The local
lumber was not less strong, but the reason why the program
was not made available for the purpose of building larger
structures was for quality control to maintain a one-to-one
relationship between the seller and the buyer. He thought
it was smart to begin the program on a smaller scale. There
was potential for it to be a stepping stone to larger
projects, but it would be under the purview of statewide
building codes.
Representative Coulombe asked about Section 41 of the bill
which stated that the certification would be valid for five
years. She asked if a person would need to do the entire
program again after the certification had expired or if the
process could be expedited.
Senator Bjorkman deferred the question to an online
testifier.
1:55:15 PM
JEREMY DOUSE, NORTHERN REGIONAL FORESTER, DIVISON OF
FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES (via teleconference), responded that the intent
was that the individual would take the class again. The
class was only one day and he thought it would be
beneficial for individuals to receive the learning
experience again. Additionally, the class would be free.
Representative Cronk appreciated the bill and believed it
was a stepping stone in creating a vibrant timber and
lumber industry in the state. He thought timber was an
endless resource in the state.
Representative Hannan commented that she had been concerned
that the program would be housed in the university but
there was no information provided from the university. She
was aware that the university had stated its support for
the legislation in a letter, but the letter was not
included in committee packets. She wanted to give Senator
Bjorkman the opportunity to speak on the university's
support.
Senator Bjorkman deferred the question to his staff.
LAURA ACHEE, STAFF, SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, responded that
DNR had spoken with UA about creating a position that would
support the instruction for the lumber grading program. The
fiscal note was from DNR because it was a DNR program. The
department could have chosen to conduct the training in-
house or work with another vendor, but ultimately decided
to collaborate with the university.
Co-Chair Foster asked Mr. Douse to describe the fiscal
note.
Mr. Douse explained that the fiscal note from DNR [control
code pQzXM] would not require any additional personnel but
would require some additional travel expenses for lumber
milling and grading training events. Additionally, expenses
for contractual services through a reimbursable services
agreement with the university would be incurred. There
would also be a cost for commodities, which would cover the
cost of publishing a lumber grading handbook for purposes
of training.
Co-Chair Foster noted that there were no amendments. He
would entertain a motion to move the bill if it was the
will of the committee.
2:00:45 PM
Representative Tomaszewski MOVED to REPORT SB 87 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 87 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
note: FN1 (DNR).
SENATE BILL NO. 25
"An Act relating to inactive state accounts and funds;
relating to the curriculum improvement and best
practices fund; relating to the fuel emergency fund
and fuel emergency grants; relating to the special
Alaska Historical Commission receipts account;
relating to the rural electrification revolving loan
fund and loans from the fund; relating to the
Southeast energy fund and grants from the fund; and
relating to the Exxon Valdez oil spill unincorporated
rural community grant fund and grants from the fund."
2:01:35 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted that the next bill would be SB 25.
2:01:50 PM
AT-EASE
2:03:33 PM
RECONVENED
2:03:58 PM
SENATOR JAMES KAUFMAN, SPONSOR, introduced SB 25. The bill
had been nicknamed "silly funds" because the goal was to
eradicate funds that were meaningless. He read from the
sponsor statement (copy on file):
SB 25, in its current form, is intended to improve
performance by reducing administrative cost and
complexity associated with maintenance and tracking of
accounts that are no longer needed but are still open.
The state of Alaska at various times creates special
accounts to receive and hold money for certain
purposes, but over time some of those funds become
dormant and are no longer needed.
This can include filled funds that are not supporting
active programs, empty funds that are not supporting
active programs and funds held in trust.
Reducing the administrative burden of maintaining
unneeded funds is a prime example of the type of
incremental continuous improvement that is needed as
Alaska faces new fiscal challenges.
Senator Kaufman explained that his office reviewed existing
funds, determined which funds were no longer needed, and
created a mechanism to review funds every two years to
determine if there were any additional funds that could be
removed.
2:06:17 PM
MATTHEW HARVEY, STAFF, SENATOR JAMES KAUFMAN, read the
sectional analysis of SB 25 (copy on file):
Section 1:
Amends AS 24.20.020 to add a requirement for the
Legislative Finance Division to conduct a review of
inactive state accounts and funds at the beginning of
each new legislature and to submit an electronic
report including recommendations regarding which
inactive state accounts and funds should be repealed.
The report distribution list is included in this
section.
Section 2:
Adds a new subsection to AS 37.07.020 stating that the
governor may act upon the Legislative Finance Division
report in Section 1 of SB 25 by submitting legislation
in accordance with the report.
Section 3:
Repeals the statutory authority for the following
funds not supporting current or active programs.
• AS 14.07.182 Curriculum Improvement and Best
Practices Fund
• AS 26.23.400 Fuel Emergency Fund
• AS 41.35.380 Alaska Historical Commission Receipts
Account
• AS 42.45.020 Rural Electrification Revolving Loan
Fund
• AS 44.33.115 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Unincorporated
Rural Community Grant Fund
Co-Chair Foster asked Senator Kaufman whether the Rural
Electrification Revolving Loan Fund (RERLF) related to
efforts to construct high powered electric lines in rural
areas of the state.
Senator Kaufman responded that the loan program was largely
supplanted by the Electrical Service Extension fund. Many
of the accounts had names that sounded compelling, but the
funds had been supplanted by other funds.
Representative Josephson noted that the Southeast Energy
Fund (SEF) was slated to be removed, but it was also listed
under repeals. He asked Mr. Harvey for clarity on the
situation.
Mr. Harvey responded that the Committee Substitute that was
passed by Senate Finance [CSSB(FIN)] removed the energy
fund and the inclusion of the fund on the list of repeals
seemed to be an error.
Representative Josephson noted that SEF still appeared to
be in the bill.
Mr. Harvey responded that AS 42.45.020 was in the bill.
Representative Josephson indicated that he had misread it.
2:10:20 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon asked Senator Kaufman if there would be any
implications relative to the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA) if SEF was removed. He was leery of
removing fund that were inactive that might have a future
purpose. He was in support of the bill.
Senator Kaufman responded that in the process of crafting
the bill, he found many funds that had reasons to exist. He
was not married to the idea of any specific fund being
deleted. The idea behind the bill was more focused on
implementing a clean-up mechanism that would require that
the funds be reviewed every two years. He would research
whether there would be any impact on IIJA and would follow
up with the committee with the information.
Co-Chair Foster requested that an entity such as the Alaska
Energy Authority (AEA) provide information to the committee
about the potential impact of the removal of the energy
fund.
Co-Chair Edgmon commented that it was easy to remove the
funds but difficult to reinstate the funds. He was
supportive of the bill but would like to be cautious about
the potential consequences.
Representative Hannan wondered if the any entities under
which a fund had been created had indicated that a fund was
not needed. She asked Mr. Harvey how much money was in the
funds and whether the money was supposed to be compiled for
ten years. She agreed that if there were funds that were
not being used that the funds should be removed, but she
wanted to ensure that entities that were responsible for a
fund agreed that it was no longer needed.
Mr. Harvey responded that as a result of the sweep in prior
years, many of the funds with statutory authority now had
zero balances. The Fuel Emergency Fund had a balance of
about $22,000, but the Disaster Relief Fund was now being
used for the same intents and purposes for which the
emergency fund was initially created.
2:14:51 PM
Representative Galvin appreciated the intent of the bill.
She did some research on the bill and commented that there
was a section in AS 43.05.095 covering indirect expenditure
reports. It seemed as though the commissioner was required
to provide an annual report to the chair of the House
Finance Committee (HFC) detailing the expenditures. She
thought the process already seemed to be in place and she
was curious what would change with the bill.
Senator Kaufman replied that the bill would require the
Legislative Finance Division (LFD) to review the
expenditures and deliver the report. He argued that it
would expediate the process.
Representative Galvin relayed that she was not certain what
to do with the information. She wondered if the purpose of
the bill was to further emphasize the intent that was
already in statute but was not being followed.
Senator Kaufman responded that the bill might further
emphasize the intent in an indirect way.
Representative Coulombe thought there was concern around
deleting accounts. She stated her understanding that LFD
would review the accounts every two years and recommend
which ones should be deleted. Subsequently, the governor
would need to introduce legislation to have the accounts
deleted. She asked if her understanding was correct.
Senator Kaufman responded in the affirmative.
Representative Coulombe asked if funds would be allocated
to the unrestricted general fund (UGF) if accounts that
still contained funds were closed. She wondered who would
decide where the money would go.
Senator Kaufman replied that the funds would go to UGF.
Co-Chair Johnson referred to page 2, line 20 of the bill.
She commented that sometimes HFC did not have a chair or
had multiple chairs. She asked if there needed to be an
amendment in order to accommodate all possible scenarios.
Senator Kaufman responded that he would be amendable to the
introduction of an amendment.
Co-Chair Johnson replied that she had wondered about the
verbiage of "chair" as compared to "chairs."
Representative Stapp relayed that he was going to make the
same comment as Co-Chair Johnson. He appreciated the bill
and the efforts to clean up the processes to ensure that
unnecessary funds were deleted.
2:20:39 PM
Representative Hannan referred to AS 43.05.095 mentioned by
Representative Galvin, which directed the Department of
Revenue (DOR) to manage accounts. She understood that the
bill would request LFD to review the accounts and create a
report. She asked if DOR had not been completing the
statutory duties and whether LFD would be the best entity
to conduct the duties in the department's stead. She was
amenable to restructuring the process but it appeared that
the accounts were intended to be under the purview of DOR.
She wondered if substituting DOR for LFD would fix the
problem.
Senator Kaufman responded that the zero fiscal note stated
that LFD could easily absorb the duties into its current
workload and it would not be a financial burden.
Mr. Harvey responded that he did not have the definition of
indirect expenditures in front of him, but it was his
understanding that the accounts that were proposed to be
deleted were outside of the definition and it was not
statutorily required to have it included in the report. He
understood that it would be a slightly different report. He
would follow up with the committee with a more in depth
response in writing.
Co-Chair Foster asked Mr. Alexei Painter to comment.
2:23:22 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
explained that LFD conducted one half of the indirect
expenditure report and DOR conducted the other half. The
report for which LFD was already responsible focused on
forgone revenue and not on funds. He relayed that there
would be two separate reports and it would be a new
statutory responsibility for LFD. He clarified that DOR
conducted its portion of the indirect expenditure report as
required by statute and LFD crafted a different portion of
the report.
Representative Galvin commented that she appreciated the
clarification. She wondered if the process would be similar
for both reports.
Mr. Painter responded in the affirmative. He explained that
DOR was responsible for a portion of the indirect
expenditure report on an annual basis and LFD was
responsible for another portion that ran on a six-year
cycle. The proposal would involve an additional publication
every two years on the funds. The division repeated some
information provided by DOR but also added information that
was not included in DOR's portion of the report.
Representative Galvin asked for clarification that LFD
collected the report by DOR and combined it with LFD's
report before presenting it to the committee.
Mr. Painter responded in the affirmative.
2:26:28 PM
Representative Coulombe asked Senator Kaufman if all
accounts would be reviewed or only the accounts under DOR.
Senator Kaufman deferred the question to Mr. Painter.
Mr. Painter responded that the bill did not say
specifically that it would only review funds under DOR and
there might be funds outside of the department that would
be required to be included in the report. He clarified that
the report would go beyond the funds administered by DOR.
Representative Coulombe asked if the permanent fund would
be reviewed.
Mr. Painter responded that the permanent fund would
certainly not be considered an inactive fund, but the fund
was within DOR.
Co-Chair Foster reminded the committee that the
presentation was intended to be an introduction to the
bill. He thought some of the nuances would be discussed in
subsequent hearings. He thanked the presenters.
Senator Kaufman relayed that he appreciated the committee's
time.
SB 25 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 125
"An Act relating to trapping cabins on state land; and
relating to trapping cabin permit fees."
2:29:04 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted that the committee would be hearing
HB 125 and invited the sponsor to introduce the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM MCKAY, SPONSOR, introduced HB 125. He
read the sponsor statement (copy on file):
Alaska has a rich history of trapping which far pre-
dates the founding of our state. Trappers who run long
lines in remote areas need cabins for shelter. These
cabins are small, basic domiciles which serve as
shelter in Alaska's harsh weather conditions. Roughly
three decades ago, trapper advocates worked with the
legislature to implement a program which allowed for
the construction of trapper cabins on state lands (AS
38.95.075 AS 38.95.085). Over the years, issues have
been identified with that program which require
statutory amendments. This bill would address several
problems relating to Trapping Cabin Construction
Permits (TCCP).
HB 125 updates the outdated statutes associated with
receiving a TCCP and incorporates the use of existing
trapping cabins on State lands. Current Statute does
not allow the Department to issue permits for already
constructed cabins. This bill would close that gap so
all permits will be issued as Trapping Cabin Permits,
covering both construction of a new cabin and allowing
the continued use for an existing cabin.
As Alaskans, we have a unique respect for traditional
ways of life, such as trapping. I urge my fellow
colleagues of the 33rd legislature to support this
legislation to help Alaskan trappers.
2:32:19 PM
TREVOR JEPSEN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TOM MCKAY, introduced
the PowerPoint presentation "HB 125 Trapping Cabin
Construction Permit Reform" dated April 27, 2023 (copy on
file). He began on slide 2 and defined trapping cabins as
small and basic domiciles along trap lines that were used
for temporary shelter. The necessity of the cabins had to
be proven before the cabins would be permitted to be built
on state lands. Trapping cabin permits were currently
issued under AS 38.95.075 and AS 38.95.080. The statutes
were crafted over 40 years ago. He argued that statutes
created unnecessary confusion in permitting process and
restricted the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from
permitting cabins under certain scenarios.
Mr. Jepsen continued to slide 3 to expand upon AS
38.95.075. He explained that the statute demonstrated the
process for DNR to issue permits for cabins that were
already in existence. The individual seeking the permit had
to prove that the cabin had been in regular use before
August 1, 1984. Issues would arise when cabins had lapsed
in ownership, use, or were abandoned. He explained that DNR
had seen a pattern wherein individuals wanted to utilize
trapping cabins, but DNR was not able to issue permits due
to the limitations of the statute.
Mr. Jepsen advanced to slide 4 to further detail AS
38.95.080, which authorized DNR to issue permits for the
construction of new trapping cabins. He read the
requirements for a permit for a new trapping cabin:
1. The person must have an established trapline with
proof of regular use;
2. The person must have a trapline of sufficient
length to justify the need for cabin construction
Mr. Jepsen continued that AS 38.95.080 also outlined the
responsibility of the department as well as other
requirements and restrictions for trapping cabin
construction permits.
Mr. Jepsen moved to slide 5 and explained the ways in which
HB 125 would address the problem. The bill would revise AS
38.95.080 to include all trapping cabin permit situations
and repeal AS 38.95.075. It would allow DNR to permit
existing cabins on state lands. It would also update the
application fee schedule and set all related fees in
statute and provide additional clarity on the permitting
process. He noted that the bill was the result of a
collaboration between the House Resources Committee, DNR,
and the Alaska Trappers Association (ATA).
2:36:05 PM
Co-Chair Foster suggested that Mr. Jepsen provide the
sectional analysis.
Mr. Jepsen read through the sectional (copy on file):
Sec. 1 Conforming change to incorporate the new AS
38.95.080(g) (section 6 of this bill) into the fee
schedule regulations under AS 38.05.850(a).
Sec. 2 & 3 Restructures the existing AS 38.05.080(a)
and (b), which authorize the commissioner to issue
trapping cabin permits. Also clarifies who is entitled
to a permit for existing cabins on state lands.
Sec. 4 Clarifies the conditions for a permit that must
be included in regulations. This clarification
includes:
1. Providing more guidance on permit renewals
2. Detailing the process for multiple cabins
under the same permit
3. Specifying a procedure for unowned cabins
4. Setting statutory fee limits for the permits
5. Making several technical drafting changes
Sec. 5 Provides more explicit language to ensure that
a use permit cannot be misinterpreted as providing
ownership rights or preference rights to future
ownership.
Sec. 6 Creates two new subsections, which:
1. Further define the nonexclusive nature of the
permit by stating that the director may issue
multiple trapping cabin permits for the use of
the same cabin.
2. Bars the department from charging additional
land use fees for the use or construction of a
trapping cabin.
Sec. 7 Conforming and technical changes to the
definitions section.
Sec. 8 Repeals AS 38.95.075 (permits for the use of
trapping cabins) to conform to the changes made in
this bill and to remove the outdated August 1, 1984,
reference point.
Co-Chair Foster added that there was a representative from
ATA online for questions. He asked if the individual had
any comments.
2:38:50 PM
RANDALL ZARNKE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), relayed that the process by
which trapping cabins were permitted was created by ATA and
DNR and it seemed to have worked well for nearly 40 years.
He recently started to hear complaints from ATA members who
were unable to get their permits renewed. He relayed that
DNR staff reported that the original legislation did not
authorize the department to renew permits. The association
worked in collaboration with DNR to craft HB 125 to solve
the problem. The bill would bring stability back to the
process as well as increase the original permit fee, which
ATA supported. He emphasized that not all trappers needed a
cabin, but cabins were essential for trappers in remote
locations. The bill would benefit both urban and rural
trappers. He warned that if the bill did not pass, trappers
with existing cabins would be left "in limbo" and without a
process by which cabin permits could be renewed.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Mr. Zarnke. He added that there
were other testifiers available if members had additional
questions.
2:42:04 PM
Representative Hannan noted that Section 1 of the bill
would incorporate the new AS 38.95.080(g) into the existing
AS 38.05.850(a). She understood that most of the existing
statute related to permitting new trapping cabins for use.
The current statute gave permit preference for use to
uplands users on the track of tidelands. She was curious
how the statutory preference would intersect with the new
proposed statute relating to trapping cabins. She was under
the impression that the cabins in question were trapping
cabins, not tideland cabins or duck hunting cabins. There
had been some conflicts about duck hunting cabins
encroaching on state tidelands and she wanted to ensure
that the bill focused purely on trapping cabins.
Mr. Jepsen responded that the only change made by HB 125 in
Section 1 was adding AS 38.95.080(g), which were the
stipulations listed in Section 6 relating to permit fees
and allowing multiple permits to be issued for the same
cabin. The bill did not change any other language in AS
38.05.850(a).
Representative Stapp referred to language on page 3 of the
bill disallowing shelters exceeding 400 square feet to be
built without authorization. He asked Mr. Jepsen if there
were existing structures that could theoretically be used
as trapping cabins but could not be permitted because the
cabins were built without prior authorization.
Mr. Jepsen responded that the issue mentioned by
Representative Stapp was one of the reasons for the bill.
There were cabins on state lands that trappers would like
to use but were unable to due to the current statute. The
bill would allow previously built cabins that exceeded 400
square feet to be permitted for trapping as long as the
individual applying for the permit did not build the cabin
without prior authorization. He added that unutilized
trespassing cabins that could be a liability for DNR could
be eligible for trapping cabin permits.
Representative Stapp understood that if a person
constructed a cabin without authorization prior to the
bill, there was no way the cabin could be permitted.
Mr. Jepsen responded in the affirmative. He clarified that
if an individual built a cabin without authorization, the
individual could not get a trapping cabin permit.
Representative Cronk asked Mr. Jepsen for a description of
"proof of regular use."
Mr. Jepsen responded that there were multiple ways to
provide proof of regular use, such as a verified trapping
license issued by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG),
fur receipts, or proof of income related to trapping
activities.
Representative Cronk thanked the sponsor for bringing forth
the legislation.
2:47:22 PM
Representative Josephson understood that if there was a
trespassing cabin constructed on state land that was
greater than 400 square feet, the cabin would be
permittable under the bill. He asked Mr. Jepsen if his
understanding was correct. He recalled that DFG was
previously involved in trying to eliminate shoreline cabins
on hazardous sites and all of the cabins that were not
eliminated were grandfathered in to permitting in 2022. He
understood that HB 125 would take similar actions, but the
cabins would not be privately held. He thought the bill
would "bless" some cabins that would not have been
previously authorized in the past.
Mr. Jepsen responded in the affirmative. If the cabin was
built without authorization and was abandoned or there was
a lapse in ownership, the cabin would be permittable under
the bill. He understood that DNR would like there to be a
party responsible for some of the cabins. He asked a
representative from DNR to confirm his understanding.
MEGAN HILLGARTNER, DIVISION OF MINING LAND AND WATER,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference),
responded that Mr. Jepsen was correct and DNR would prefer
that any existing and unauthorized cabins be captured under
a permit. The bill would give the department the ability to
ensure that existing cabins would be accounted for through
an authorization.
Representative Josephson asked Ms. Hillgartner what the
department was doing to address future unauthorized cabins.
Ms. Hillgartner responded that the department did its best
to work with trappers that had interest in utilizing
existing cabins or seeking authorization for unauthorized
cabins. For example, other entities such as DFG had sought
use of existing trespass cabins on state lands. There were
also other ways in which a cabin could be permitted under a
different authority, such as a guide program. The
department made efforts to permit the cabins under existing
authorizations, but it had removed some of the cabins that
were not permittable. It would be helpful to the department
to have the ability to permit cabins for the use of
trapping.
2:50:56 PM
Representative Hannan relayed that the bill referenced
"regular use" and on page 3, line 5, the term "periodic
use" was used. She wanted to ensure that an individual with
a ten-year trapping cabin permit would not be required to
use the cabin every year in order to prove it was being
utilized on a regular or periodic basis. She asked Ms.
Hillgartner to provide DNR's definition of regular use and
periodic use. She asked how many trapping cabins currently
existed.
Ms. Hillgartner replied that there were currently 83
existing trapping cabins on state lands. She relayed that
regular use required that there be evidence that a trapper
was using the cabin in association with trapping
activities. If an individual was issued a ten-year trapping
cabin permit, the department would determine regular use by
examining elements such as proof of income as a result of
the trapping. The department would not necessarily mandate
that there be proof of annual use of a cabin, but for a
trapper to provide proof that the cabin was being used in
association with trapping activities during the term of the
permit.
Representative Hannan asked for clarification that to prove
regular use, there would need to be evidence that an
individual used the cabin throughout the permit period, but
there did not need to be evidence of selling furs. She
shared that the trapper she worked with would hold furs for
several years if the price of fur declined and would sell
the furs again once the price increased.
Ms. Hillgartner would verify the information and follow up.
Representative Cronk commented that he had a personal
conflict because he held a permit. He shared that he
submitted ceilings receipts to DFG as proof that he was
using the cabin. Many cabins were in remote locations: one
of his cabins was 14 miles off the road and another was 26
miles off the road. It could become a safety issue when
trappers were in remote locations and the temperatures
dropped and individuals had nowhere to go to seek shelter.
He relayed that the cabins could also be for survival
purposes.
2:55:21 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked about the requirement for
a trap line to be sufficient length to justify the need for
the cabin. He asked Mr. Jepsen for more information on
sufficient length.
Mr. Jepsen responded that sufficient length was generally
regarded as any length that would be hazardous to run the
trapline without the presence of a nearby shelter.
Sufficient length was subjective and dependent upon each
trapper's individual circumstances, topography, and
weather. The main deciding factor was whether it would be
hazardous to run the trapline without the availability of a
shelter.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the meeting was intended to be
an introduction of the bill. He asked if the bill sponsor
had any closing comments.
Representative McKay thanked the committee for its time.
HB 125 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
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.
ADJOURNMENT
4:00:39 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.