Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/08/2022 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| Village Safe Water and Wastewater Capital Projects | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 8, 2022
9:05 a.m.
9:05:16 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Carrie Bohan, Facilities Services Program Manager,
Department of Environmental Conservation; Ruth Kostik,
Administrative Services Director, Department of Natural
Resources; Randy Bates, Director, Division of Water.
SUMMARY
VILLAGE SAFE WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
^VILLAGE SAFE WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
9:06:37 AM
AT EASE
9:09:12 AM
RECONVENED
9:09:26 AM
AT EASE
9:11:25 AM
RECONVENED
9:12:19 AM
RUTH KOSTIK, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES, introduced herself.
Co-Chair Stedman HANDED the GAVEL to Co-Chair Bishop.
9:12:42 AM
CARRIE BOHAN, FACILITIES SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, discussed,
"Department of Environmental Conservation, Senate Finance
Committee" (copy on file). Ms. Bohan looked at slide 2,
titled "Village Safe Water":
Village Safe Water's mission is to support rural
communities in their efforts to develop sustainable
sanitation facilities
.notdefCommunities with a population less than 1,000
per AS 46.07.080
We accomplish this mission by:
.notdefFunding planning, design and construction of
water, wastewater and solid waste projects
.notdefProviding project management and oversight for
grant funded projects
9:13:51 AM
Ms. Bohan addressed slide 3, titled "Rural Alaska
Sanitation Funding Need." She informed the committee that
the pie chart contained information compiled by the Indian
Health Services (IHS) Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS).
The total rural sanitation funding need totaled $2.27
billion as of the fall of 2021. The most significant
portion was for first time service in unserved communities
[61 percent]. The second highest need was for upgrades to
benefit system operations or to address minor health
threats [22 percent]. The last portion [17 percent] was for
upgrades to address substantial health threats.
9:14:58 AM
Co-Chair Bishop brought up the states $2 billion in
deferred maintenance needs and $1 billion in bulk fuel
upgrade shortfalls. He noted the $1.3 billion for first
time service and wondered if it would rid rural Alaska of
the honey bucket system. Ms. Bohan answered in the
affirmative.
9:16:09 AM
Ms. Bohan pointed to slide 4, titled "Unserved
Communities." She indicated that she provided additional
backup information and referred to the document titled
Unserved Rural Alaska Communities (copy on file) that
listed the unserved communities as contained in the slide
and included the definition as Communities in which 55% or
less of the homes are served by a piped system, septic tank
and well, or covered haul system. She noted that the
communities marked by an asterisk on the slide already had
funding committed to provide service. She added that the
communities of Lime Village and Crooked Creek would receive
septic tank and well systems and Tununak and Shageluk would
receive pipe service. She pointed out that the cost
estimate data and monthly user rates based on a 2016
Engineer Report commissioned by Village Safe Water (VSW)
was outdated along.
9:18:02 AM
Senator von Imhof requested a map of unserved communities
and wondered whether unserved communities were located near
enough to produce economies of scale. She wondered if many
communities could use the same type of system or needed
unique systems. Ms. Bohan pointed out that the handout
included a listing of the region where each community was
located. She pointed to the Yukon-Kuskokwim, Interior, and
Norton Sound areas that had the highest number of unserved
communities. She answered that most of the communities were
remote and could not connect to an existing system. She
noted that there were 30 communities that had major
engineering, construction, and capacity challenges that
warranted a distinct design. Each of the communities had
such unique circumstances that it was not possible to
utilize economies of scale and replicate one package that
fit all needs. The department had pursued modular units,
but they were not cost efficient.
9:21:27 AM
Senator Wilson asked where the 55 percent distinction was
derived from. She did not know agreed to provide the
information.
9:22:01 AM
Senator Hoffman voiced that VSW was an important issue for
Western Alaska, especially in the time of COVID 19. He
agreed with the cookie cutter approach referred to by
Senator von Imhof. He hoped VSW would work extensively to
develop the approach. He inquired about the best practice
scoring and if VSW received community feedback on the
issue.
9:23:46 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked for VSW to rank the funded projects
in priority order. He asked if the list of funded unserved
communities projects would start in the current year. Ms.
Bohan answered that the information was on the list for
unserved communities. Co-Chair Bishop wanted a list of all
the funded projects by village in the current year.
Senator Hoffman requested the population of underserved
communities as well. Ms. Bohan agreed.
9:25:44 AM
Ms. Bohan displayed slide 5, titled "Village Safe Water:
Average Project":
.notdefCost to provide running water and sewer to individual
homes in a village for the first time
.notdef$500 -$750 thousand per/home
.notdefProjects typically last 5 -10 years to completion,
depending on
.notdefSize and complexity of the project
.notdefAvailability of funds
.notdefAbility of community to meet ongoing
construction funding conditions
9:26:43 AM
Senator von Imhof asked if VSW installed typical toilets or
composting toilets. Ms. Bohan answered that most of the
toilets were traditional toilets, however in some
communities the toilets used a vacuum system. Senator von
Imhof hoped that Ms. Bohan would address the maintenance of
the systems later in the presentation. She shared that she
had visited communities with very complex systems and
villages with simple systems. She observed that the simple
systems worked well.
9:28:22 AM
Ms. Bohan discussed slide 6, titled "Village Safe Water:
Funding Sources," which showed a flow chart of its funding
sources and the corresponding allocations. She pointed to
the left side of the slide that depicted the Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) allocation system derived from
the 25 percent state match, USDA Rural Development funding,
and the EPA Infrastructure grants that flow through the CIP
traditional funding route in the typical amount of
approximately $70 million per year. She pointed to the SDS
list on the middle right and explained that the funding
flowed through from IHS and EPA tribal Safe Drinking Water
Act and Clean Water Act. The funding was awarded to
communities based on each programs evaluation criteria.
She delineated that a committee conducted a review that was
comprised of Ms. Bohan as a representative of VSW and a
representative from all the participating federal funding
programs. Once the funding was allocated, either VSW or the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) provided
administrative support to the communities. She added that
most villages were eligible for both CIP and SDS funding.
9:30:53 AM
Co-Chair Bishop inquired whether the Denali Commission
contributed funding to VSW. Ms. Bohan answered in the
affirmative and reported that the funding was allocated
through the SDS process.
9:31:25 AM
Senator von Imhof noted the governor spoke of the
importance of public and private partnerships in which she
agreed with. She asked if Ms. Bohan was familiar with the
Leona Hemsley Foundation Grants and if VSW was working with
them. Ms. Bohan replied that the foundation reached out to
VSW and VSW had them contact ANTHC who placed them with the
Norton Sound Health Corporation. She added that VSW was
also working with the foundation. Senator von Imhof
emphasized that she wanted VSW to take full advantage of
the opportunity. She relayed that the foundation had
extensive knowledge on the issue.
9:33:15 AM
Senator Wielechowski agreed with attempting to find the
most efficient approach. He asked if federal American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds were available for wastewater.
Ms. Bohan replied that there were some ARPA funds that
contributed to sanitation improvements through the IHS.
Senator Wielechowski wondered if all the ARPA funds had
been expended for wastewater projects. Ms. Bohan answered
in the affirmative.
9:34:16 AM
Senator Hoffman asked Ms. Bohan if she knew where Togiak
was located. Ms. Bohan responded in the affirmative.
Senator Hoffman shared that when Togiak attempted to
improve its water and sewer systems it was turned down for
a micro-loan through VSW. The community asked for help
through ANTHC and completed the system. He believed that
the project would have been completed sooner if VSW had
assisted. He asked how many other communities had been
hindered by VSW by not assisting villages that had shown
their own initiative to address its water and sanitation
needs. He asserted that some rural communities preferred if
VSW stayed out of their business and feel they would be
better served. He shared that the Commissioner [Jason
Brune, Commissioner, DEC], agreed with the assessment. He
believed that the situation was unnerving and expressed
disappointment. He wondered if Ms. Bohan had a comment and
how VSW could do better in the future. Ms. Bohan voiced
that she was familiar with the situation in Togiak. She
stated that VSW only recently established the micro-loan
opportunity where they offered VSW eligible communities the
ability to apply for a heavily subsidized loan through the
state revolving loan fund. She explained that because it
was a loan program the community had to demonstrate its
capacity to carry the loan. The VSW program worked with the
EPA to develop the eligibility criteria. Togiak and ANTHC
made the decision to move forward with the project counting
on the community's ability to access the loan funds. The
partnering agency to VSW, the Rural Utility Business
Advisor (RUBA), Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED) had been working with Togiak
to help them improve their score to qualify for the loan,
however they were unable to accomplish qualification in a
timeframe to work with the project. She indicated that VSW
had made exceptions for Togiak by keeping the application
open and coordinating with RUBA. She furthered that VSW
offered Togiak a traditional revolving fund loan, which
could help them move forward while pursuing the micro-fund
loan.
9:41:37 AM
Senator Hoffman voiced that Western Alaska had the highest
level of unemployment and the lowest income in the state.
He wondered whether VSW had tried to identify all the
programs Togiak might qualify for. He spoke to the high
cost of living in the area. He believed that when a
community showed initiative the state should jump at the
opportunity to help. He asked how many times VSW travelled
to Togiak to help them identify a loan or funding source.
He wondered what the VSW mission was and how the mission
failed the people of Togiak.
9:44:25 AM
Ms. Bohan agreed that VSWs mission was to try to identify
all the opportunities to fund sanitation improvements. She
commented that VSW did not accomplish the mission on its
own and looked to its many partners, and in the case of
Togiak, ANTCH led the effort of funding coordination. She
restated that VSW requested that RUBA assist in the Togiak
effort since it was RUBAs specialty. She stated that VSW
would continue to assist Togiak but acknowledged that there
were not many funding opportunities. Senator Hoffman
restated his question regarding the number of times VSW
travelled to Togiak to assist the community. He believed
that VSW should reevaluate its mission and empathize with
the rural residents of Alaska and assist communities that
show its own initiative. He contended that VSW hindered
communities that wanted to better themselves.
9:47:52 AM
AT EASE
9:49:05 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop HANDED the GAVEL to Co-Chair Stedman.
9:49:11 AM
Co-Chair Stedman stated that the Economic Outlook
presentation would be rescheduled.
9:49:54 AM
Senator Olson thanked VSW for its assistance in Golovin. He
spoke about troubles with the Best Practices score and
viewed it as a hinderance to eligibility. He had heard from
villages that believed that they could never be served
because ineligibility prevented them from developing a
sustainability plan. He planned to propose eliminating the
best practices score. He was aware of federal issues that
would arise and wondered what the best way was to get rid
of the Best Practices score, which he felt hindered
progress in communities in need of a sustainable plan. He
asked how the best practices score could be circumvented
for communities that lacked the capacity for a
sustainability plan. He asked if the division favored
eliminating the scoring system.
RANDY BATES, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WATER, responded that
there were slides prepared to address the issue of the Best
Practice scores. He spoke to DEC's mission to assist
communities with sanitation infrastructure and was
excited to help. He underlined the challenges and
acknowledged there was room for improvement. He related
that VSW worked with all its partners to help achieve
capacity, which was a federal requirement under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. He was open to the conversation
regarding eliminating the best practices score but did not
think it would alleviate the capacity issue and that it
would not go away.
9:54:39 AM
Senator Olson thought that water and sewer was important to
all communities in Alaska. He stressed that COVID had
exacerbated the issue of access to clean water and sewer in
rural Alaska.
Co-Chair Bishop commented on best practices. He voiced that
best practices was a required piece of accepting federal
money. He asked whether the best practices list would look
different with full General Fund (GF) funding.
Mr. Bates answered in the affirmative. He indicated that
best practices were utilized to prioritize projects that
were ready for funding. He elaborated that all the state's
needs will be funded by the federal infrastructure
legislation and therefore, even though the best practices
score would remain relevant, it would not act as a
gatekeeper and all of rural Alaskas sanitation needs
will be met. Co-Chair Bishop asked whether all the needs
will be met between the states share and the tribal share
of the federal funding. Mr. Bates replied in the
affirmative.
9:58:28 AM
Mr. Bates said that DECs hope was to position the state to
take the fullest advantage of the infrastructure money that
was forthcoming.
Senator Hoffman reiterated that there were systemic
problems in DEC that needed to be addressed. He argued that
every year that a project was delayed had real effects for
communities. He felt that the funding was an opportunity to
get things done for rural Alaska. He feared that DECs
bureaucracy would keep rural communities from receiving the
federal funding in a meaningful timeframe. He suggested
that ANTHC should take charge of VSW projects since they
were in the field and getting projects accomplished.
10:00:49 AM
Ms. Bohan pointed to slide 7, "Village Safe Water: Funding
History." She drew attention to FY 2022 and the small red
line depicting the Denali Commission funding and the large
navy area on the bar that portrayed the $39.3 million in
COVID related funding through the IHS. She expounded that
the IHS and ANTHC used a portion of the funding to develop
an in depth planning analysis for providing the unserved
communities water and sanitation services. The
organizations would define solutions to provide pipe
service or other methods with currently available money
outside of the federal legislation.
Ms. Bohan addressed slide 8, "Village Safe Water: Funding
History." She highlighted that the slide depicted the
funding for FY 2023. She noted that Village Safe Water was
not directly anticipating an increase in its federal
funding, however the IHS received a substantial increase in
FY 23 of over 3 times its normal level.
Co-Chair Bishop inquired whether the funding flowed through
VSW. Ms. Bohan responded in the negative and expounded that
when VSW provided lead project support the money would flow
through Village Safe Water on the community's behalf.
10:03:35 AM
Senator Olson deemed that 2015 funding was a turning point
in funding relief and eligibility based on best practices.
He asked for more historic data. Ms. Bohan would provide
the information.
10:04:19 AM
Ms. Bohan discussed slide 9, "Village Safe Water: FY2022 by
the Numbers":
.notdefPlanning Projects
.notdef$1.9 million funding made available
.notdef19 studies for 19 communities
.notdefProject range: $75,000 -$180,000
.notdefConstruction Projects
.notdef$69.7 million funding made available
.notdef9 ongoing construction projects and 10 new
construction projects
.notdefProject range: $80,000 -$21.1 million
.notdefIHS and EPA Tribal Construction Projects
.notdef$55.2 million funding made available including
$1.3M from Denali Commission
.notdef17 construction projects
.notdefProject range: $563,000 -$8.8 million
10:06:51 AM
Ms. Bohan pointed to slide 10, "Village Safe Water: Funding
Eligibility":
.notdefCommunities are eligible for one VSW funded planning
project at a time
.notdefAn approved planning document and a demonstration of
a minimum level of capacity is required for design
and construction funding
.notdefEnsure the community has the technical, financial,
and managerial capacity to operate and maintain the
facility in the long term
.notdefRequirement of all new public water systems per the
Safe Drinking Water Act
.notdefFirst time piped service projects also require an
approved Sustainability Plan
10:07:51 AM
Co-Chair Bishop had a query regarding the third bullet
point. He shared that a rural community in his district
received a washateria larger than the one requested. He
wondered if VSW listened to the communitys feedback and
local knowledge. Ms. Bohan answered that the engineers at
VSW and ANTHC coordinated with the community. In addition,
the review committee she had mentioned earlier and DECs
drinking water, wastewater, and solid waste programs all
had to review and approve the planning documents at the
conceptual stage. She furthered that VSW garnered feedback
from the communitys regional health corporations. Co-Chair
Bishop emphasized that VSW should rely on the local
sanitation operators.
10:09:56 AM
Ms. Bohan addressed slide 11, "Village Safe Water: Funding
Eligibility":
Operations and Maintenance Best Practices capacity
assessment tool developed in conjunction with ANTHC
and RUBA
Communities are scored twice per year based on
information provided to DEC and RUBA
Ms. Bohan commented that VSW developed the capacity
assessment in 2015 and vetted it with its regional partners
and ANTHC. She stressed that the current capacity
assessment was a change from the prior best practices
process to one universal assessment. In addition, VSW
performed the capacity assessment prior to granting funding
versus after funding was granted as in the previous
process, when the community had to prove its capacity
level. The former method often used up to 3 years of a 5
year funding cycle just to determine capacity, resulting in
a shortened project life as well as threatening the
projects federal funding, which could be reassigned to
another project. She furthered that the score taken in the
spring was used for determining eligibility the following
fall.
Co-Chair Bishop asked for an explanation of RUBA. Ms. Bohan
reiterated that it stood for Rural Utility Business
Advisor.
10:13:27 AM
Senator von Imhof referenced demonstrating capacity. She
asked if demonstrating capacity involved training
individuals on maintaining the systems from the inception
of the project. She inquired whether it was challenging to
find enough people willing to maintain and operate the
communities systems. Ms. Bohan responded that she would
answer the question in more depth later in the
presentation. She elucidated that it was a frequent issue.
Federal and state regulations required a community to
employ a certified operator, which offered challenges. She
commented that VSW wanted to provide long-term sustainable
solutions and it was an issue.
10:16:02 AM
Senator Hoffman was pleased that VSW was looking for long-
term sustainable solutions. He cited slide 11 and was
concerned with the second bullet point regarding twice per
year scoring. He relayed that some communities did not have
the staff to provide the information. He reiterated his
question regarding how often VSW visited rural communities
and acted as boots on the ground. He worried that
otherwise, VSW conclusions could be flawed. Ms. Bohan
replied that the department continued to make traveling a
priority in order to meet the needs of the communities it
served. She elaborated that VSW funded in conjunction with
regional health corporations, a remote maintenance worker
program located in hub communities as well as utilizing DEC
employees based in Anchorage to provide the same service.
Each of the 10 to 15 workers were assigned 10 communities
to provide technical assistance and training and
collectively made over 200 visits in a year. She furthered
that RUBA was developed to provide the same service except
for financial and managerial utility capacity. The remote
staff worked on behalf of VSW. In addition, VSW had
engineering staff that visited about one-third of the
communities.
10:21:25 AM
Senator Hoffman cited that he represented the largest hub
representing 56 villages over a huge area. He wondered how
VSW distributed the funding between unserved and
underserved communities. Ms. Bohan answered that there was
not a distinction between unserved and underserved in the
funding. The analysis currently underway would inform VSWs
funding decisions regarding unserved communities and once
the planning documents were completed, they would be the
highest priority VSW projects. She added that unserved
communities received the highest score in the health
categories which weighted those projects as the highest
priority. Senator Hoffman asked what the purpose of scoring
communities was twice each year.
10:24:15 AM
Ms. Bohan replied that there were two purposes. She
conveyed that there was a high turnover in operators and in
key community positions so the twice a year communication
helped VSW maintain awareness of the level of technical
assistance needed and to ensure that the community leaders
were focusing on the funding process. The fall score was
for informational purposes only.
10:25:14 AM
Co-Chair Bishop requested a follow-up presentation in the
spring. He wanted the presentation to include how many DEC
staff were examining the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA) funding so that every possible dollar of funding
would be attained.
10:27:08 AM
Ms. Bohan referred to a handout titled Best Practices
(copy on file) that included the scoring criteria and noted
that the following slide summarized the criteria. She
pointed to slide 12, "Village Safe Water: Funding
Eligibility":
.notdefTechnical
.notdefOperator Certification
.notdefPreventative Maintenance Plan
.notdefCompliance
.notdefManagerial
.notdefUtility Management Training
.notdefMeetings of the Governing Body
.notdefFinancial
.notdefBudget
.notdefRevenue
.notdefWorker's Compensation Insurance
.notdefPayroll Liability Compliance
Ms. Bohan communicated that the foundation of best
practices was housed in the Clean Water Act. Via federal
regulation, the state was obligated to all public water
systems serving over 25 people in the state. She furthered
that before the system was approved, the community had to
demonstrate technical and managerial capacity. She
maintained that all of the states systems were subject to
the evaluation. She informed the committee that RUBA
offered online managerial utility training and did
compensate for any training travel costs.
Co-Chair Bishop remarked that the operator and preventive
maintenance criteria should be weighted very high as an
indicator of long-term maintenance ability.
10:31:18 AM
Senator Wilson referenced the comments that through IIJA
all communities would be served. He asked if the criteria
and scoring would still be necessary or would become
obsolete. Ms. Bohan clarified that that funding was
appropriated to the IHS and correlated to all the projects
in its SDS data base. She added that Alaskas portion of
the funding was $2.1 billion and IHS was still determining
how the funding would be ultimately allocated. She
reiterated that VSW funding would not markedly increase
under IIJA and would be a much smaller portion of the total
project funding however, VSW would still utilize a scoring
system for its portion of the funding.
10:33:48 AM
Co-Chair Bishop clarified that the allocation of IIJA
funding happened but was not yet appropriated.
10:34:07 AM
Senator Olson pointed to the technical aspect of
eligibility and wondered what happened when the expertise
was lacking. Ms. Bohan responded that she managed the
operator certification program and there were a number of
initiatives to help operators achieve certification that
included outreach and increased training opportunities. She
related that VSW was unable to send operators to
communities lacking staff. The remote operators provided
support to existing operators. She noted the challenges to
maintaining certified operators. Senator Olson inquired
what the timeframe was for communities that were not
eligible to become qualified. She indicated that unserved
communities currently had time to work on eligibility while
the planning document was in the process of being
developed. Senator Olson voiced that from the perspective
of some rural communities, VSW was not supporting the
process of capacity.
10:38:49 AM
Senator Olson asked Mr. Bates whether he viewed the
progress in VSW from an optimistic or pessimistic point of
view. Mr. Bates responded that he was absolutely
optimistic. He recognized that there were challenges at
VSW and with the scoring system but pointed out there were
also challenges in the communities that need to be
overcome. He characterized the forthcoming funding as a
transcendent opportunity. He emphasized that VSW heavily
relied on its partners ANTHC and RUBA. He elucidated that
VSWs role was in the technical score and ANTHC and RUBA
were involved in the financial scoring. The timeframe for
eligibility never ended and all involved wanted communities
to build the capacity. The capacity ensured that not only
could a community obtain rural sanitation but maintain it
in the long-term. He acknowledged that there was room for
improvement.
10:42:33 AM
Senator Wilson asked if the funding would cover new
infrastructure and homes that could accommodate new water
and sanitation systems.
Ms. Bohan, believed that the intention for the IHS funding
was to provide service to every home except for difficult
outliers. She furthered that housing funding was available
but not through sanitation funding.
Senator von Imhof wanted to see a presentation that
contained the history of what was accomplished, what worked
and did not work well, the questions asked of the
communities, and details regarding future projects. She
felt that the presentation lacked useful information.
10:46:14 AM
Co-Chair Bishop emphasized that there was a huge amount of
federal money from different programs forthcoming and it
would take a tremendous effort to utilize all of it
effectively.
Senator Hoffman remarked that a large component of the
housing issue was working with the housing authorities. He
wondered whether there were conversations between VSW and
the housing authorities to ensure that the new homes would
have the infrastructure to support the proposed systems to
avoid retrofitting. Ms. Bohan responded that the
conversation between VSW, ANTHC, and the housing
authorities was not always successful, and houses were
often built without coordination. She acknowledged that the
discussions would be more important with the accelerated
funding. She offered that regulations prohibited providing
service to homes not yet built, which presented a timing
mismatch, but VSW was striving to synchronize the projects.
10:49:19 AM
Senator Wilson wondered how many communities would be
served via the forthcoming appropriations each year.
Co-Chair Bishop interjected that the information would be
provided in a future presentation.
10:50:01 AM
Senator Olson commented on the water issues in Unalakleet.
He asked for an update. Ms. Bohan replied that VSW was
drilling test wells and the design was completed for a new
water source, construction would begin in the current year
and replacement of the distribution system would happen
over the next several years.
10:51:30 AM
Co-Chair Bishop discussed the afternoon's meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
10:51:45 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:51 a.m.