Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:16:47):
Great, thank you very much. So with that we'll set, uh, uh, HB 1 25 aside, and we'll move up to the final bill for the day. And that is House Bill 1 78, and that is Village Safe Water Facilities. Uh, and it is a house finance committee bill. It directly impacts how the Village Safe Water Program expends the increased funding they received, um, through ija and other capital funds. And so I'd like to call up to the table, uh, my Chief of Staff, Paula Vo, and he'll introduce the bill and walk us through the legislation. Uh, then we'll have questions for, um, or we'll, um, go to department, uh, with Randy Bates, director of Water, and then also, uh, Carrie Bohan, facilities Program Manager. So with that, um, Mr. LaBolle, if you can put yourself on the record and introduce us to the bill.
Paul LaBolle - Staff Foster (01:17:42):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Paul LaBolle, staff Representative Foster and the finance Committee House Bill 1 78 adds one sentence to the statute establishing the Village Safe Water Program. It says that the Commissioner shall prioritize projects based on need. Historically, the amount of funding available for sanitation improvements in rural Alaska has been inadequate to meet the identified needs as a revol result. The funding agency's developed criteria to determine eligibility and priority for the limited resources available. The best practices score is that assessment metric. The scoring requirements of that assessment metric served as a barrier for funding. However, we're in a different position now. The funding provided under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as ija, has provided sufficient funding to meet the state's needs. Uh, we need to pay a close attention that state requirements don't hamper distribution of those funds based on the Spring 2023 scoring cycle.
Paul LaBolle - Staff Foster (01:18:47):
95 of 196 communities currently do not meet the minimum threshold for funding through the Village Safe Water Program. If we continue to use the best practices score to determine eligibility and priority, then we will run the risk of having Ija funds expire or be reallocated elsewhere before we can get projects committed. The best practices tool remains a critical component to evaluate a community's strengths and weaknesses and to identify ways to assist the community for their ongoing success. It's an assessment tool. It's there to make sure the state is doing its job in identifying communities in need, but not as a barrier to deny funding for those communities. Section 1420 of the Safe Drinking Water Act requires the state to develop a capacity development strategy for the Environmental Protection Agency that outlines the methods used to identify and prioritize those communities most in need of improving technical, managerial and financial capacity. However, the Safe Water Drinking Act does not say that assessment should be used as an eligibility hurdle. Currently, the Village Safe Water Program has no statutory direction on how they should prioritize those funds. House Bill 1 78 directs the department to prioritize those projects based on need.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:20:10):
Great. Thank you very much. And just wanted to, uh, give a little bit of background. I think, um, some of our, uh, more rural legislators, um, um, over the years have, um, expressed some frustration over the scoring system in terms of how, um, some of our, uh, small communities, uh, receive, uh, funding for, um, water and sewer. Some communities have no, uh, piped water and sewer whatsoever. They're, they're considered what's called, uh, unserved. And I think the gist of this, uh, bill, all it does is it just says, um, we will place need, um, as a higher priority than we do capacity to maintain the system. So what's happening is sometimes you'll get a, a small village, um, that maybe doesn't score real well on their ability to, um, maintain the system. And that's a real concern, of course. But what to me is more concerning is, for example, when Covid occurred and, um, and folks were, there is no water and sewer systems in, in these villages.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:21:14):
And so, and even without, uh, COVID, you still have a situation where it's just not good to have, um, a situation where there is no water and sewer, um, and people are trying to ration a couple gallons of, of water a day so that you're not constantly going back to the main, um, water tank, uh, at the cafe was area in the village, uh, to, um, to get five gallons of water. And then you wash your hands in that same, you know, uh, bin of water for two or three days because, you know, it's 20 below and, and, and maybe you're elderly. And getting to the cafeteria or wash chair is not as easy. So again, um, really what this bill does is it just says, um, that, um, we would like, uh, the Village Safe Water Program to prioritize, uh, a village's need more than their capacity to maintain. And especially in light of the si uh, fact that we've got a lot of money coming through the ija, uh, federal funds, and we wanna make sure that we capture those because if we don't, uh, that money will go away. So, um, with that, again, I mentioned, um, we do have, uh, or I, I don't see on online here, at least on my iPad that, oh, wait, no, I do. They're in the room here. Randy Bates and Carrie Bohan. Um, Mr. Sure. Uh, representative Benjamin. Yeah. If
Representative Edgmon (01:22:34):
I could ask, uh, your staff, uh, can you talk about the formation of this bill and who was all involved in, in the crafting of it?
Paul LaBolle - Staff Foster (01:22:43):
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so our office, um, had worked with both your office and the, um, Alaska Municipal League and the, uh, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium in coming up with a way to change the metrics on how projects are currently prioritized. Uh, right now, there's essentially three main portions that go into prioritization needs is an existing, prior or existing one of those. There's also the best practices score, which is the metric, assessing how capable they are of managing the system. And then there is the third system, which is the affordability framework, which looks at, if a project goes forward, what would the cost to the end user be, and is that cost considered affordable? And this changes that to put the needs on top as the most important prioritization principle.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:23:45):
Thank you. And, um, and at the center of all of all of this, as, as you mentioned, I just wanna underscore, is, is what's called the Aruba scoring. And, um, and funds are awarded based on the score that a community gets. And if they get a low score, then they don't get money, and then you see a village that continually is rejected in terms of getting, um, water and sewer into their community. Um, I do want to note, um, as, uh, in addition to the folks I mentioned earlier, available for questions is also, uh, Nell's Andreas, and he's the executive director of the Alaska Municipal League. And, uh, Mr. Um, Lebo, was, um, Mr. Bates and Ms. Bohan available for questions, or do they have testimony?
Paul LaBolle - Staff Foster (01:24:31):
They're available for questions, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:24:33):
Okay, thank you. Um, and we've got a couple questions. Um, and so with that, we've got Representative Hannon, and then representative, uh, cologne.
Representative Hannan (01:24:45):
Thank you, chair Foster. Um, and I guess, and I'm, I wanna make sure, so the, the scoring rubric that is now used, um, doesn't produce, it leaves people out who are probably the most in need, the bill references and says it'll be based on need. And I'm wanting to know how that's defined or measured or, um, you know, so whether that's in the statute defined or whether that's in D e c, uh, defined.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:25:18):
And, and if I could just, uh, to me, uh, need would be, um, does a community have, um, a piped water sewer system or not, um, is one way to look at it. Or you could say, you know, there's some communities that have kind of a, like, they might have, like, some parts of a community has piped water and sewer, but maybe the old part of town doesn't. Or you could say some communities, um, you know, they, they may not have piped water and sewer, but maybe they've got other forms of, um, something not just the hall system. But, um, just wanted to throw that out there to me, that the simplest way to look at it is to say, oh, gosh, there's how many communities on this list that have no water and sewer whatsoever there called unserved. But, um, Mr. Lebo?
Paul LaBolle - Staff Foster (01:25:57):
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, um, as stated previously, the department already does a needs assessment. So the needs assessment is currently a part of their ongoing prioritization process. So it's just moving that existing metric to the top.
Representative Hannan (01:26:17):
Follow up, follow up. I, I heard you say that, and I'm wondering, is it on this scoring rubric somewhere? Because what I have heard from the rule legislators in the past, so we've got several districts who have no, they have no piping, they're still on honey buckets. So now in my mind, that means they are both top one priority need, but if we don't have enough money to fund everybody, how are those gonna be distinguished from each other? Is what I'm sort of looking at of, you know, is what, what's that need rubric looks like, so that we make sure, and I, and I totally agree and support, I, I'm not trying to raise opposition to this bill. I'm trying to make sure that we are going to get the results with that. You're seeking that that need is elevated, Mr. Mm-hmm.
Paul LaBolle - Staff Foster (01:27:06):
<affirmative>. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The, uh, the needs portion of the, the needs assessment is not in the best practices score sheet. The best practices score is a separate sheet that deals with managerial capacity, and then the third component is the affordability framework, which is also separate from the two other metrics.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:27:30):
Uh, representative Benjamin, uh, was your comments on this? No, just can you put me in the queue, please? Oh, sure. Absolutely. Um, representative Hanon, was that your, do you have a follow up on that?
Representative Hannan (01:27:39):
Uh, since this is the introduction, the bill, I presume that the department will understand that I wanna see that need, and I wanna make sure that, that our lease served villages are getting the top priority of delivery of new money for new infrastructure. Um, I want,
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:27:55):
Thank you. And, and to that, um, Mr. Lebo, can we also, um, have at the next meeting, uh, the list of, uh, served and unserved or the list of unserved communities and, and the, the Village Safe Water Program must say, a breakdown on that, just to give folks a sense of how many communities are there that have no water and sewer, um, no piped water and sewer at all, uh, in the queue, we've got Representative Cologne, representative staff rep, representative Benjamin, representative Colom,
Representative Coulombe (01:28:23):
Uh, thank you, co-chair, foster. I'm not sure who could answer this, but, um, I'm, um, new to this, I'm not a rural legislator, but I definitely have, I have, um, seen the need and, and heard the concerns around the scoring system. My biggest issue was when we had the department here before they were having a tough time, um, um, changing or eliminating the scoring because of what the Feds require for the funding. And so I just wanna be sure that whatever changes are happening that does that affect what the federal government is requiring to get the money to do the jobs.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:29:01):
Mr. LaBolle?
Paul LaBolle - Staff Foster (01:29:02):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that, uh, question would be best directed to the department.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:29:08):
Okay. Um, and with the department, so I've got listed here, but I think it might be incorrect. Um, Randy Bates says he's with the Division of Habitat, department of Fishing and Game, but I also have him listed as Department of, um, water <laugh>. Oh, old. Okay. Would you, so we've got Mr. Bates and Carrie Bohan. Are you also here? If you can, um, maybe address the question. So that would be your previous life. Is that what I'm hearing? <laugh>
Speaker 16 (01:29:38):
Thank
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:29:49):
And if you can put yourself on the record, of course.
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (01:29:52):
Good afternoon. Randy Bates, director of Water, department of Environmental Conservation. I'm, I'm happy to be here. And, and Mr. Chair, co-chairs Johnson and Edgeman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting us up to speak to this, um, the department. First and foremost, we share a common goal, and we are certainly committed to, uh, ensuring that our communities have the opportunity to take advantage of both the increased village Safe water funding, as well as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or Egypt funding, uh, that is appropriate and available in Alaska. It's, it's critically important that we provide this service to our rural communities, and we also assist them in every way possible. A as they endeavor to own and operate these facilities for the safe and long term operation and, and maintenance of these, uh, the, the millions of dollars of investment that is available and, and gonna go into our communities. Respectfully, representative, the department does not take a position. Uh, we do not object. We do not support the legislation as it is introduced. Uh, we recognize the desire to prioritize needs, uh, for our eligible communities. Respectfully. The bill itself as worded, does not accomplish the desired goal that it's been stated here so far.
Speaker 16 (01:31:20):
Okay.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:31:22):
And it's a good question. I, I've got a follow up on that, but I'll let Representative Coulombe Yeah.
Representative Coulombe (01:31:26):
Just one follow up. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. So, so if this went through and the changes happen, would that affect the ability for us to use the federal money
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (01:31:39):
Through the Chair Representative Colom? The answer is no. We, as I mentioned, we intend to use all of the available, uh, village Safe Water and Egypt funding that is coming to the state that is available and appropriate for us to be able to use. There are some caveats and limitations on how and what that money is and what we can use it for, but it is our absolute intention to make use of all of that funding. We do not believe a community will be left behind. We have a number of years to be able to take advantage of the funds, um, and get these projects built. It's also our commitment and desire through our partner, our sister agency at Commerce, um, to provide the support for the communities to be able to, to, to be able to operate those facilities and maintain them for the long term. These are not, yes, there's millions of dollars going into the structure and the, the, the building of these, but at the time, the key turns, the Feds walk away and the communities are left to be able to own and operate these facilities, and they have to be able to do so safely so that their residents are delivered with clean drinking water and, and sustainably, um, so that they operate for the long term, for the long term health of the residents and the safety of 'em.
Representative Coulombe (01:32:54):
Can I have one more follow up, uh, follow up. Um, thank you Chair. So, through the chair, just, I wanna just clarify. So the, from my understanding, the Feds require a scoring. Is the, is this scorecard developed by the department, or is this a scorecard that comes from the feds and you guys administer?
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (01:33:13):
Uh, thank you, uh, representative Coulombe. through the chair. The Safe Drinking Water Act does require, as a primacy agency implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act, that we have a capacity assessment in place prior to construction and operation of that facility. Um, we have utilized the best practice operation and maintenance, best practice scoring tool as that one of those, um, uh, uh, assessment pieces that will predict the ability of that community to safely own and operate that were we to abandon those scores and eliminate our, uh, capacity assessment of those communities. We do jeopardize, uh, the funding, certain funding as well as other program funding. The state revolving fund. We would, we would jeopardize about 20% of the income from that program as well.
Representative Coulombe (01:34:10):
Thank you.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:34:11):
Okay. In the, uh, queue, I've got representative staff, representative Benjamin, myself, and then Representative Galvin.
Representative Stapp (01:34:17):
Yeah. Thank you. Co-chair Foster, um, through the chair, I think to the members of the department. So just to clarify one technical aspect here. So I think that, uh, this is a really smart idea to ensure that we can finally get, uh, utilities in a lot of these places that haven't had 'em. My only concern, and I think you hit the nail on the head already, is, uh, I, I don't wanna abandon the concept behind, um, ensuring that we have a strong preventative maintenance plan to ensure that these facilities are well maintained after this ija money's out. So, uh, I don't know if you, I think you answered that already while you were speaking a little bit ago, but maybe you wanna wanna touch base on that real quick
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (01:34:55):
Representative stat through the chair. Absolutely. Right. And, and that's, that's the foundation of capacity. It is to, uh, for two reasons. Number one, identify can a community, uh, safely and sustainably operate that facility? And number two, i in the instance of a scoring tool like this, uh, if a community is not scoring at a reasonable level, or they have some deficiencies in certain areas, it gives us as the state and, and with our partner agency the opportunity to assist that community to build their, uh, strengths. If they're, if they're lacking in a certain managerial capacity or a financial capacity, these, this scoring tool will identify that and give us the opportunity to work with directly with that community to build that capacity so that they have that. We think that that is a key indicator of their ability to manage the facility going forward, um, both through rate pay, um, and, and operations so that it's, uh, fully funded locally and fully, uh, sustainable, uh, by the community.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:36:01):
Okay. Uh, representative Edgeman,
Representative Edgmon (01:36:06):
So I've, I've got a couple questions. Mr. Co-chair, um, you know, reading off the language of section 4 14 20 of, uh, um, it's, which reads State authority for new systems, there's a sentence that talks about, um, you know, beyond the technical, the managerial, the financial capabilities, there's a sentence that talks about essentially having to comport with respect to each national primary drinking water regulation, in effect, wouldn't this bill make it easier for your department and others to compete for the federal money that's out there? Uh, knowing that some of it's competitive money? Um, I guess that'd be my first question, and I'll, I'll sort of loop in my second question while I'm asking, when I've asked the first question. But, um, uh, in a prior life, I was working in a state agency and was a regulator with a community development quota program, and the power of regulatory authority, being able to take a simple sentence and statute and derive a fair amount of meaning through the regulatory process from it, um, wouldn't that cover a lot of bases to, if anything, meet the consternation and the concern, um, you know, sort of the, um, it's more than consternation, it's frustration, right?
Representative Edgmon (01:37:22):
Based on the written letters that we've gotten that, uh, and again, I've kind of been in your shoes before. I know what it's like to be a regulator to get yelled at and all that stuff you're doing, your job operations and maintenance and setting up these very expensive systems. Um, but, uh, some, my question again is two-tiered. Wouldn't this bill in effect make, um, Alaskan more competitive in terms of competing for federal money that's out there? Um, and then two, wouldn't you be able to take this very simple addition to the Veg Safe Water Act and expand it in the regulatory process to serve your need, or at least give those communities appearance that you're serious about trying to make ends meet
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (01:38:04):
Rep representative Edgeman through the chair? Thank you. I, yeah. I only laugh. Have you been in my seat sitting here facing you <laugh> as well as a regulator? I, I appreciate that, and I appreciate your background. Um, there's, um, I'll, I'll answer the second question first and, and then, uh, if carrie's probably a little more plugged into the, the federal scene and, and the partner she plays with, um, they work with on this front, um, um, just representative Benjamin, if you would just restate the second part of your question. So I have in my head again, well
Representative Edgmon (01:38:46):
Just, you know, the, I,
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (01:38:47):
I apologize. Hippocratic
Representative Edgmon (01:38:48):
Oath first do no harm. Right, right, right. So, I I, I, I think the way I construe the bill, and based on the, the, you've held, you've had multiple hearings, at least two that I've seen in community regional affairs here in the house, had a hearing before this committee just very recently, best, as I can construe the addition to the, the statutory addition, um, would not sort violate that pr uh, principle. It would in fact, at least give you some tools to enhance this scoring mechanism that I think we all agree probably needs to progress to the next level in order to take advantage of, uh, these hundreds of millions of dollars, Hector's a quarter, uh, quarter of a billion dollars in this year's budget alone. Um, so I'm just wondering if this gives you an additional tool through, um, you know, the federal language that you operate under.
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (01:39:34):
Sure. Thank you for restating it. And it quite honestly allowed me to catch my thoughts. Um, representative Edgeman through the chair, we recognize, and we've had this conversation in the last couple committees, both in house finance as well as the house community and regional affairs. We recognize that the common denominator here is the best practice scores, and particularly a couple of those categories, managerial and financial. Um, we recognized three years ago that those scores were on a declining trend, and we raised this issue with our sister agency. We have since that time, been working towards, uh, a planned and a relationship with them to reverse that trend specifically, and particularly for the communities. Um, we have last year, um, my understanding is, uh, division of Community and Regional Affairs, uh, retained, uh, uh, gained two additional staff, uh, possibly $500,000 and a federal grant, recognizing they needed to improve service to the community, specific to, uh, scoring in these categories.
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (01:40:39):
They are committed, um, to improving their delivery of service to those communities. Um, not as a threshold of eligibility, but as a matter of practice. So the community is operating in their local government a as intended, which is also the same goal under the Best Practices score. Um, I think there's, uh, I think it's public now. We saw it on the website. There is a new, uh, grant that was awarded to, uh, Alaska Minnace League, uh, within the last couple hours, if, if not day. And that is also dedicated towards, uh, addressing this problem with best practice scores and the ability to, uh, assist communities, uh, build their capacity and, and ability to manage those communities. So we recognize the best practice scoring challenges. We as a state have committed resources towards that. AML is stepping in, recognizing, and communicating with us on what that, uh, what that need is.
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (01:41:38):
And they are, they are poised to help us in that endeavor as well. Um, it is not our intention to, certainly not our intention to keep systems, uh, at bay. We want to find a way to help them become eligible under the scoring tool to be able to function their, their local government in a way that's gonna make that, uh, infrastructure safe and sustainable. Um, and abandoning scores is not necessarily the right way to do it. We did, as you know, representative Benjamin in the committee last week, uh, affirm our commitment to evaluating those scores and doing it in a very transparent, open public way where we're submit soliciting input, gathering the information, and, uh, evaluating the, the efficacy of those, um, scores, amending them as an as necessary to, uh, uh, have an effect for the communities. We, we recognize It is a landscape changing opportunity, uh, with the infrastructure funding, and we intend to take foliage advantage of it. We also recognize the absolute need that with the influx of money and the infrastructure going into communities, communities have to be in a position to accept those projects the day the keys turn over and, and help those facilities safely and sustainably operate for the long term.
Representative Edgmon (01:43:00):
Mr. Chairman, if I'm, and I, I raised these level of questions not to, um, you know, be accusatory or anything along those veins, but just to, to bring this discussion out because I think it's, it's an important discussion. Was it, uh, last week that we had the hearing that you were here in front of the committee? Yes. I think Ms. Bowan, you, you talked about the Community Wales, I think that's in your district. Correct. Mr. Co-chair in how there were 42 households. It was 47 million plus $300 per household to sort of, um, pay the utility bill. So the circumstances out there in some of these smaller communities is extremely challenging. And then you add on long-term operations and maintenance, o and m and so forth. And you as regulator, our task was sort of putting a, a scoring system together that, uh, you know, as the City of Bethel contends in their letter here, goes beyond the letter of the law or, uh, not mandated by Congress or the legislature, you're imposing several requirements that the funding eligibility and so forth that kind of go beyond the, um, the letter of the law.
Representative Edgmon (01:44:03):
But I, I guess what I'm not hearing, um, in this line of questioning is whether this bill maybe gives you a little bit of statutory, um, you know, quote unquote cover to, to put, uh, uh, you know, to take, as you suggested, the scoring system to the next sort of level of evolution with all this money at, at stake here. Um, and I, I just want to make sure that we're thoroughly scrubbing this and, and giving you something that, um, you know, some tools that might help you or a tool, um, while at the same time, um, demonstrating those communities mostly, uh, you know, representing K Cronk district, representing Fosters district, uh, got a couple of unserved, one unserved underserved in my district, but giving them some sense that we're taking this seriously, you know, and, and we're gonna do what we can do to give you the tools knowing that you've got a really tough job. Yeah. And I, you know, I'm not for once, um, sitting here thinking that your job is just a matter of shuffling papers, because it's more than that. Yeah.
Speaker 25 (01:45:04):
Uh,
Representative Edgmon (01:45:05):
Quick,
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (01:45:06):
Quick response from Ms. Bohan, if we could, um,
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:45:08):
Ms. Bohan, if you can,
Speaker 26 (01:45:10):
Priority that we currently do, and then
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:45:14):
Ms. Bohan, if you can put yourself on the record.
Carrie Bohan (01:45:16):
Um, my pleasure. Uh, good afternoon. Carrie Bohan. I'm the Facilities Programs Manager with the Division of Water at the Department of Environmental Conservation. Um, I did want to just make note that, um, I think that the description of the, um, project evaluation criteria that was described previously might not be fully accurate. Um, I'm very happy to share our project scoring, um, criteria. It's based on, um, the, the first category is health benefits. So we look at, um, what is, what is the benefit to the community and our unserved and underserved community score the highest in that category. Um, then the project deficiency, um, sorry, I actually have it in front of me and I should probably look at it. Um, so that looks at what is at the current level of service. And so if it's an unserved or underserved community, again, uh, that, that community would receive the highest points.
Carrie Bohan (01:46:19):
So that's 50% of our project scoring. Um, then we look at 40% is capacity, and we also consider very minutely 5% is the quality of the application and, um, related projects. So there had been a mention of affordability, and I just wanted to be able to clarify that that is not an, an eligibility or scoring criteria. We have developed a model, and I believe we had a, a few moments to touch on that, um, in last week's hearing. Um, it's, it was a metric that, or a tool that was created to help, um, better inform the department on what the anticipated user fees would be and the level of burden it would be to community members. Um, it is something that for unserved communities that are seeking pipe service, we, we would look to see what their rates would be in comparison to that model, just as information. And then, um, look to understand from the community, what's their plan, what's their plan for sustainability? Are they going to be able to partner with regional, um, partners, organizations to help fill that gap in what their rate payers can afford and what the cost of the utility is. Um, but that affordability index is just a tool. It's not, um, it's, it's not part of our scoring criteria for projects at this point.
Representative Edgmon (01:47:41):
I close Mr. Cortier
Speaker 16 (01:47:43):
Of, uh, Isman.
Representative Edgmon (01:47:45):
Well, but I, you know, the, the biggest takeaway that I want to come from this discussion, and, uh, you know, the, the journey that the bill takes, however far it goes and so forth, is that those communities out there that cannot, and I've got the page here from the presentation, it's last week, um, that cannot meet the criteria right now. They simply can't meet the criteria. I I think there's communities out there that just can't. Um, and so we need to somehow, as you alluded, director Bates make, figure out a way to get them to, to qualify, right? Right. Um, these are, you know, unserved, non piped communities. Maybe they've got, uh, hall systems or whatever it might be. But that's the challenge in front of us. And I, I just want to hear as a closing point, uh, whether this bill hurts your process to, to achieve that, that goal,
Speaker 16 (01:48:38):
Mr. Bates
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (01:48:39):
Represent Edmond through the chair. The answer is no. This does not hurt our process. This does not help our process. This affirms much of our current process that's already in place as we prioritize needs for communities. Eligibility is still a consideration, even with or without this bill. This doesn't a, as, as, uh, some of the other members on this committee have asked, what is the definition of need? What is, how do you prioritize? Those are not defined in here. Those are not provided. And as such, it, this, we don't, we don't view this additional sentence as substantive, uh, other than supporting our current process.
Speaker 16 (01:49:29):
Mr.
Representative Edgmon (01:49:30):
Co-chair, um, you know, it's easy for me to sit up here and ask you questions, right? And you've gotta go back to the drawing board and make this work. Um,
Representative Edgmon (01:49:40):
Maybe I'll, I'll throw in a, a <laugh> I concluding question part two. Uh, what would it take then to help you? Um, do you need any statutory assistance? Because clearly, like we talked last week, this is a watershed moment, a quarter of a billion dollars in the, in the capital budget this year for projects that, uh, are not gonna qualify under the current system. You know, and, and, but maybe they are gonna qualify because you're amending the process. And, uh, you, you've got us here with a bill in front of us, uh, tentative committee. Can, can we do something to help you?
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (01:50:14):
Sure. Representative Edgmon through the chair. Thank you. And that's great. I think we're here to ask and answer the same question. It is important to note that that quarter billion dollars is not, uh, village safe water controlled funding. It is in the capital budget, um, largely as, I don't know the right term hollow authority. It's actually i h s funding. Um, and so I h s Indian Health Service does not consider capacity in the award, uh, and construction of, of community, uh, infrastructure like this. So that's very important to note that that money will be going out, um, uh, through ihs. Uh, what we, what we recognize and what we want help with is, uh, assisting the communities to develop their managerial, technical and financial capacities such that they are eligible through that scoring tool. And, and like I said, we're willing to adjust, uh, uh, look at that scoring tool. But this, this requires the community and our agency to come together to develop that capacity for their ability to operate independent. Once that infrastructure is built, we, we've, we are making changes. We look forward to the support to continue to make those changes on the delivery, delivery of service. And this also requires the communities to know the steps they take to be successful. And it's incumbent upon us to tell them the steps to take.
Representative Edgmon (01:51:41):
Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna wrap it up finally by, by saying that, uh, you and I both live and breathe rural Alaska. I was born in Dillingham. I I've been in honor villages all my life. Uh, I, I guess the frustration I I I'm experiencing right now is not directed at the agency, but it's just directing it, having a sense of the larger picture, you know, the local government specialists in the Department of Commerce who we had at the table the other day. The fact that, of course, it's it's capacity driven out in the Bush, Alaska, a lot of it, it's capacity driven in urban Alaska to some extent for things. Um, and I, I, I don't feel like we're having that conversation, and maybe we're talking to, uh, you know, sort of one piece of the puzzle. Um, but, um,
Representative Edgmon (01:52:23):
You know, I, I, I don't know, maybe, maybe this bill needs to, uh, be much larger in context or something, because you're absolutely right. A lot of these communities, uh, uh, are not incorporated. They've got tribal governments or may, may, may or not have, uh, somebody opening up the door on a regular basis to the office, this, that, and the other. But then you've got millions of dollars knocking on the doorstep to put in this very sophisticated water system and to, um, have a utility that doesn't have a, a operator or manager. And, um, that's the part that I'm not hearing much about. And you, you have just brought it forth. And, uh, so I, I, I feel like we've got a lot to sort of discuss here, Mr. Co-chair. And I really appreciate you giving me the time to, to follow up with, uh, my never ending list of concluding questions
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:53:08):
In, in the queue. I've got myself, representative Galvin, am I missing, uh, representative Hannon. Um, so I wanted to mention also in addition to Neils, Andreas, and with aml, we've also got, uh, Sandra Maller, uh, and she's Director of Community and Regional Affairs. And then also, uh, Francine Moreno, director of Rural Utility Management Services, uh, for the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. And, um, and let's see here. I wanted to, um, say that I wish, um, everyone could spend a month in a village with a wash basin and a honey bucket, because boy, would we find a way to figure this out really quickly, you know? And, and every once in a while throughout, you know, maybe we should take out every, you know, toilet in this building and every urinal and, and both in this building and in the offices for d e C and Village Safe water.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:54:10):
Um, and, and say that we would only put those back in once we figured out how to put them in people's homes. Um, I think that would, you know, we would really get some movement there. Um, and we would figure it out. And, and I'm of the same mind that you're representative Benjamin in that is that we all need to work together. And this isn't an adversarial thing where, you know, we're all trying to do the same thing here. Um, but, um, I, I wanna say that I, I do feel that this bill is actually doing a lot of good because, uh, this is a very difficult, um, discussion, I think. And it's, um, I, and, and, and I think we're bringing these, uh, issues to the front and center, and, and we're having this, this discussion and, and maybe the bill goes nowhere. Maybe we expand it.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:54:59):
Um, but at the end of the day, I think that folks are really understanding, you know, that there's a lot of frustration out there and, and we're doing, you know, expressing this in a very public way. Cuz I know that there are a lot of people in the public who, um, who have felt this frustration for a long time, and they're seeing that we're, we're trying to bring this to a, to a, to a head here. Um, you know, the, the, it was very popular 30 years ago to say, we will put the honey bucket in the museum. And that was 30 years ago, and it still hasn't been done. Some things gotta change for years now, years. I mean, I've been in the legislature for a while now, and, and every year that's, that's a big thing in my district in, in a number of districts.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:55:39):
And, um, and, and just, there's so much frustration over, um, you know, folks are just feeling like nothing's being done. And, and I will say that there are things being done. Part of the reason why maybe folks don't see that is because we don't, you know, at the time before ija, we didn't have money to do every single community. And so we're trying to do, you know, one or a couple at a time. So we're getting there slowly. But, um, but again, it, it gets back to, you know, not having water and sewers a third world situation. And here we are, you know, superpower United States of America, and we've got these third world, um, you know, conditions in our own, um, backyards. And, and so it's something that we really need to, um, you know, work on and, and try to fix. And, and this is a great opportunity with this ija money coming in, and we really, you know, don't want to miss the boat on this.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:56:30):
Um, and I do understand the need for capacity, and maybe that's on us to try to come up with some kind of, kind of a program where, um, you know, we, we do, we do provide some kind of assistance. I, I don't know. I mean, we need to put everything on the table. Um, I know times are tough with our, um, you know, fiscal situation, but, um, you know, life safety, health education, um, you know, are two of the three things that are, you know, specifically named in our constitution. So, um, I guess one thing that I wanted to maybe ask is, um, you had mentioned that IHS doesn't consider capacity. And, um, that was gonna be one question I'll, I'll have for Ms, uh, Francine Moreno. And then also the other question, um, is along the lines of what you asked Ripon of, uh, Edgeman, which is, um, you know, what can we do to help?
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:57:22):
And I guess if we have the answer right now, um, we might not be here, but, um, I posed that in terms of, you know, we'll have the bill before us again, and maybe we'll have some, at least ideas that we can put on the table. So, uh, with that, um, Ms. Moreno, if you can put yourself on the record. And my question is, um, it sounds like, uh, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium is one entity in the state that that puts constructs water and sewer projects. Uh, the other is the village safe water, uh, within the state. And I'm just curious about A N T H C. Um, if, if there is not a, um, capacity scoring, um, you know, do, do you place need above capacity? Um, and Ms. Marino, if you can put yourself on the record.
Fran Moreno - Dir of Rural Utility Management (01:58:10):
Good afternoon for the record. This is Fran Morenos, director of Rural Utility Management Services with a and T H C. And when it comes to the infrastructure bill money, there is, uh, a criteria for capacity, um, based on me.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:58:32):
Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Bates, I thought I heard you say I'd written that down. IHS doesn't consider capacity. Maybe if you could explain maybe a little more of that. It sounds like that's not what she's saying. Ms. Bohan,
Carrie Bohan (01:58:44):
Um, um, chair Foster, uh, it's, it's my understanding. Um, so the Indian Health Service uses, uh, the sanitation deficiency system database. All project needs are captured in that database, and that's something we do collaboratively with the communities, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and Village Safe Water. Um, when Indian Health Service, um, is evaluating those projects, and I sit on the scoring committee with Indian Health Service, epa, the other federal agencies, as we're going through that process, um, for both Village Safe Water Money, and Indian Health Service money, um, there has been a capacity indicator included that in, in that effort. It used to be the operations and maintenance, uh, best practices tool that we're talking about. We developed it in collaboration, and both agencies were using it, um, I believe a year ago, um, that that tool was stripped of its indicators. And so all communities receive the same score in that capacity indicator, and then what remains is scoring based on need.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (01:59:46):
Okay. Thank you. Uh, so with that, we'll go over to the next question. Representative of Galvin, then representative of hennon.
Representative Galvin (01:59:53):
Thank you ch um, co-chair, foster. Appreciate it. I appreciate your work, um, on this bill, and I appreciate the work that you've been doing to bring, uh, more opportunity for, um, these areas, which clearly in this file, um, I've learned a lot about many of the communities without the very basics of, of, um, what we know is important with water and sewer. Um, and I guess, uh, my question is, is around the capacity building piece. Um, I, and I understand maybe AML has some thoughts about this. I've wondered if I, I, I'd heard or read rather of 3.5 billion and maybe some other 300 million, a lot of money, a lot of interest in, in putting in some basic infrastructure, finally after, um, how many years? Um, 50, 60. And this is so exciting. Um, and I, when I, I guess what I'm gonna share is that I know when we started with education, we didn't have any buildings. We had no teachers, we didn't have any housing for teachers. Um, there were a lot of pieces missing. Uh, and I think people would call that capacity in these small communities. We made it happen.
Representative Galvin (02:01:18):
We made it happen because it was important to the state of Alaska. We understood how important it was, it was in our constitution. Um, and I, and I know that this is, we're a new state. I appreciate that. Um, I, what I wonder is, and, and at that time, there were dollars coming in from many different places to make it happen. Um, I don't know about these specific dollars and whether or not, uh, this piece of needing to have the words need in there. Um, I, I, I know we're a young state, maybe the nation needs to hear that again and again, and that certainly helps. Um, they need to know that we are on board with all of this building capacity and we're ready. What I don't know is, does do any of these dollars that are coming toward us include help with building that capacity so that we can make that happen? And if not, um, we need to think about that real fast. Like, um, and so I guess that's my question. And I think that the representative, Edmond, has been skirting around that as well, or rather directly, um, speaking to it. And, and I don't know enough about this to know, so I'm gonna stop right there and hopefully learn more.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (02:02:32):
Mr. Bates? Yeah.
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (02:02:34):
Representative Galvin, uh, through the chair. Thank you for the question. A couple things. Um, education, ongoing education and support is a heavily subsidized system. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, that's very, very different than what we're looking at with the infrastructure and how communities are, uh, strapped with, uh, the infrastructure that is built. And so in this case, we do have 3.5 billion coming to, coming to the United, uh, United States. 2.1 is coming specifically to Alaska 2.1 billion. Like, like Representative Edmon said, that is watershed moment. And we have a real opportunity here. Um, however, that is 2.1 billion that's gonna go to the communities for infrastructure. When that is built, that federal money goes away. It is upon the, the communities themselves to draw in enough rate payers to be able to own and operate that system safely and sustainably. The state does not provide subsidy, nor does the federal government provide subsidy for that ongoing maintenance and operations.
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (02:03:36):
And that is very, very different. And, and that, that becomes a very challenge, challenging situation for the communities. And, and that's where the conversation of whales comes in. Are the 42 households, 142 residents capable and willing to pay 300 plus dollars a month for what we, we, the rest of us know, is a common and needed service, water and sewer. That is a significant expense to the, to the, it, it's gonna challenge that community, um, to be able to pay for that service on a monthly basis. That's a great concern for us. We do not have in our budget either this infrastructure or ongoing budget. Um, we do not have appropriations or allocations for o operation of maintenance for the communities. That is one area that we don't, uh, dabble in. That's an area for consideration with a body like this
Representative Galvin (02:04:31):
Follow up, if I may. Are, are we making suppositions around what the, what do you have 142 folks in Wales will or will not do? Or in other words, I, I'm not sure that based on our doubts, whether or not they can come up or find a way, cuz there may be other ways, right? We know that there, there are corporations, there're tribes, there's, um, health, uh, money. And this is certainly appropriate when we think about healthcare. Uh, that's the number one thing. We've gotta have clean water <laugh>. Sure. So to me, uh, there may be funds in other places that will help cover the $300 or whatever it might be for each community. And, and I don't know that that should get in the way of, of making sure that we disperse and, and build a system, um, if that's the, the area that you're working in. And I'm just trying to understand that better. Yeah.
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (02:05:32):
Thank you Representative Galvin through the chair. That's a, it's a fair question and it's not a supposition or a guess. Um, and we wouldn't do that. Uh, we, we with our federal partners, uh, want to make sure that whatever is built is both supported by and, and, uh, by the community and that the residents are willing and able to, um, provide that, you know, monthly pay that's gonna keep that going. But it's, Carrie can speak specifically and directly to the Wales example and, and what we know of the residents survey on, on that fee,
Carrie Bohan (02:06:08):
Uh, through the chair. Um, representative Galvin recently, there was a planning document created for the City of Wales looking at putting in pipe water and sewer, what the capital expenses and ongoing operation maintenance, maintenance expenses would be. And that's where we are drawing this, uh, these dollar amounts from. And as part of that planning effort, the consultant did a survey with community members about the willingness to pay $300 a month. And none of the, none of the respondents were willing to pay that amount. And that's why we bring in this discussion. Uh, typically those planning documents have had a, a section related to sustainability and we found that we could often come to, um, a logical engineering resolution, but that sustainability discussion was getting marginalized. And so we've proposed to, um, separate those two out generally cuz the planning documents are crafted by a consultant who is on contract. So be able to close that project out and then work with the community and other stakeholders and partners to, to discuss the community's plan for being sustainable. Are they, do they have, um, businesses or, or other, um, regional partners they can draw in and, and make an upfront decision about their ability to commit to that, that rate. Um, and that's something we think is important, that needs to be community driven, but with support from our department, the Department of Commerce and, and other partners, uh,
Representative Galvin (02:07:39):
Follow up if I may. Uh, I very much appreciate that. I also appreciate how foreign this must feel to a community that doesn't have any thinking around, um, paying a certain amount of per month for something that is, um, you know, if they're not a cash-based community, for example. I mean, to me, I still think we're struggling with a bigger issue around injecting what we have this clash of, of cultures almost. And, and to say, all right, your community needs to come up with how you're gonna pay for X, Y, or Z. That I, I just can, can only guess how impossible, um, that would be. Now, I'm, I'm new to this and so I know that certainly I, I may be off base here, but I have vi visited many villages and, uh, and I appreciate that oftentimes I end up sleeping on the floor of the libraries because they don't have housing.
Representative Galvin (02:08:48):
Um, they don't have their, their only, and except for faculty housing, uh, oddly they have sewer and water there. Uh, but you know, it's just such a different, um, space and the way they, uh, gather in, they're so organized in their own way, but it's very different than, uh, a go a US government saying, you're gonna have to figure out how to pay X per month and, and then we're gonna give you this and that. And again, I I think we've got a whole nother discussion that needs to somehow happen that better appreciates that, the clash of culture that really, I think we're setting them up for failure by saying, where's your capacity? Almost like there is a, there, there needs to be a different way to approach this. I think. And I, and I don't have all the answers, but I do think it might be circling around, um, our responsibility, uh, as a state. And I'm gonna leave it at that. Thank you. Thank
Representative Foster - Co Chair (02:09:46):
You very much, representative Galvin. We'll go to our last, uh, question or comment. Representative Hammond,
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (02:09:50):
Representative Foster. Oh,
Representative Foster - Co Chair (02:09:52):
Uh, Mr. Bates,
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (02:09:52):
Very quick response to, uh, to Representative Galvin. I think it's an important concept that she raises and that is, uh, a cash based society to maintain and operate a facility. One of the challenges many of our communities have is, is there is not an industry in the local area. And what we are seeing in some of the other areas, um, they do have an opportunity for somebody to subsidize their rates. They've got a corporation, a cdq, a community development quota, or a, a a, an industry that has that capacity to add, uh, some sort of tax base or, or subsidy to this, to the community that offsets their user rates. That is a significant issue in affordability. Um, and that plays into capacity too. So, um, without that sort of support or subsidy, those community members are on their own for the full rate pay. Um, but there are alternatives out there, there are programs or regional, regional structures that could assist in those in some areas, but not all areas.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (02:11:02):
Representative of handon,
Representative Hannan (02:11:05):
Thank you, uh, chair Foster, Mr. Bates. Um, there are a couple of letters in our packet of backup that I've, uh, had the opportunity to glance through. And, um, one is from the city of Bethel to you, it's only dated a week ago on the 19th, but as opposed to the City of Community of Wales, we're using an example, let's say Bethel is a fairly sophisticated and, and describes, uh, I guess for lack of a bureaucratic nightmare, including IRS form losing by one point, um, a 28 point reduction in their scoring when they sub from one year to the next, even though they submitted by their words, an nearly identical plan. Um, and I'm wondering if you've had the opportunity to respond to them that, and whether you'll include us, uh, copy us in that response because, um, that seven page description seems to exemplify whether your whales, where we can describe, maybe they don't have the capacity.
Representative Hannan (02:12:07):
Bethel has, you know, revenue input, city manager, things going on, and even they are struggling with getting, getting through this, uh, scoring rubric in a way that leads them to be able to continue their water system. Um, and I guess I'll throw the other one is a letter from Commissioner Bruny back to, uh, the Bush Caucus. You've used this figure here and you, it says the, the conclusion, it's the April 7th letter to Edmond Foster, McCormick and Pat Uck representatives. Um, and it says that spring 23 scoring cycle 95 of 196 communities did not meet the minimum threshold. But then it, the last sentence in that paragraph says, but not all of those 95 communities were seeking water and sewer infrastructure funding. So I guess I'm curious why they're, you go through scoring, even if you're not seeking money. Um, and why would you know that intersecting with the Bethel application of they were seeking money, they went through scoring, their scoring changed. So, um, I clearly don't understand the scoring cycle at all of why we are scoring people and saying, you're not eligible, but you didn't even apply. But maybe I'm missing something.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (02:13:29):
Mr. Bates,
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (02:13:30):
Representative Hannah, thank you for the question. And, and yeah, those, those letters, uh, are both in your packet. Both the original letter that came from the city of Bethel as well as, uh, from Tribal Administrator Murphy a as well as our responses. Um, so I think it's, we're we're happy to talk about those and appreciate that, uh, the city of Bethel letter had a lot to unpack in it. There's a lot of information we did. We did, did we re
Carrie Bohan (02:13:58):
We been
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (02:13:59):
There, there is a draft response specific to one of their projects that is out there. We do not have, did you respond on that one? That did go out, I believe, so that on their particular project, uh, we did respond to the city of Bethel on the rest of their concerns, uh, related largely to the managerial and financial components of the scoring tool. We have not yet coordinated a response with our sister agency at Commerce. Largely, uh, the letter is, is critical of some of those two components, portions of those two scoring components, managerial and, uh, financial. And we'll be working with, uh, our sister agency at Commerce to, to respond, uh, appropriately to that. When we get that drafted and finalized, we will be sure to share with this committee for further discussion. And on, on the other question, um, Carrie's poised and ready <laugh>,
Carrie Bohan (02:14:58):
Uh, through the chair. Uh, representative Hannon. So, um, just taking a short step back, previous to 2015, uh, there was another similar more arduous capacity assessment tool that was in use called the Aruba assessment. And, um, that assessment took place after funding was awarded that created some issues in that communities often took years to work with Ruba to demonstrate the minimum capacity to, to release those funds, which have a limited lifespan, generally five years. And so you were, uh, essentially holding up funds that could be, um, actively being used by another community that had the capacity was ready to move forward, and also jeopardizing being able to use all of those funds in the limited lifespan. So we intentionally moved that scoring effort in advance of allocating funding. And, um, then we also talked about, uh, making sure that it was a tool that we could collectively all technical assistance providers and agencies supporting the community, we could reference and have a relatively current sense of the community's capacity and how we might be able to provide assistance to them.
Carrie Bohan (02:16:11):
So it's a voluntary program, um, and communities could choose to sit out the false scoring if they wanted to. Um, but our fear was if we were to just try and gather all the data once a year, that as we all know, there's so many things that change in the small communities, um, that there could be a drastic decline in capacity that we didn't catch as a group, um, where we could have been providing better assistance in the interim. And so that's how we came to the idea of doing scoring twice a year. One as an informational purpose. And the other is for determining eligibility for applying. And then, um, at this point, you know, communities, if they have the mini, have met the minimum score, know that they can submit an application. And we are going through that process now and are, you know, we see on any given year, you know, a wide variety of number of, of applications, but for construction, we may only see 10 to 20 applications a year.
Spearker unknown (02:17:14):
Thank you.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (02:17:16):
Thank you. Um, any closing comments, then I'll make some comments and we'll close out for the day. Any closing comments, Mr. Bates?
Randy Bates - Dir Water DEC (02:17:23):
Sure. Foster. Thank you. I appreciate this Bill. I appreciate the discussion. It's a critical discussion to have. There's a lot of information out there, there's probably a lot of misinformation out there. And being able to, uh, share with you why we do business the way we do, recognizing and owning that there are areas for improvement, uh, that's important for us to be able to commit to you, uh, and, and have an open discussion about it. Um, if you have additional questions, you want further conversation, please let us know. We have a shared commitment and goal, uh, to provide service in our rural communities and, uh, and we have this opportunity to do so, uh, in, in a, in a short window of time.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (02:18:10):
Great. Thank you very much. Um, appreciate you coming for us. I know that this is a, a tough, uh, issue, um, and, uh, a lot of challenges, um, and trying to make this work. Um, um, I I do want to say that I, you know, I think we all agree, um, at the very top highest, you know, tier of what, you know, we as human beings need our, our food and, and shelter. And then I would say the next tier down is you've gotta have basic sanitation. So I rank that up very high and, and, um, to me, uh, I realize that we need to make sure that, you know, systems are being maintained for the long term so that they don't become more of a, um, burden in terms of, you know, you've got pipes that are, you know, maybe freezing up or they're not being maintained and then we have to spend more money on them.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (02:19:03):
But, um, as much of a concern, um, that that might be, to me what is more concerning is the fact that folks just don't basically have water, basic water and sewer. I mean, they do, um, in the sense that, you know, maybe they're having to haul five gallons at a time, you know, in the dead of winter from, uh, was, and they're conserving water, which means that they're washing their hands. And I've done this, I've been to this last summer, I went to 27 different villages, and you're in a home where, you know, the hands of your hands have been washed in that same bucket of water for, you know, 10 times. And, and, um, you know, and, and I've also been in another community where, you know, the water and sewer, the, the bin was right there on the side, uh, the boardwalk in the community, and it was just full and, and is being tracked all over the place and then tracked that into somebody's house and kids get sick.
Representative Foster - Co Chair (02:19:53):
And so, um, to me, need continues to be more important than the capacity to maintain. Um, and, and we just have to find a way. And, and so, um, we'll keep working on this and hopefully we'll have some ideas. Um, but we'll go ahead and close it out for the day. And our next meeting is scheduled, um, for one 30 tomorrow, Friday, April 28th. And, uh, we'll be finishing up invited testimony with the superintendents and schools, um, on the BSA bill. And then we'll be moving to House bill 50, which is carbon storage, uh, taking public testimony and walking through the fiscal notes and revenue impacts. Um, so with that, if there's nothing else to come for the committee, we'll be adjourned at four o'clock. Thank you.