Existing and Potential Local Contributions
To Village Safe Water Projects
prepared for
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Facilities Construction and Operation
prepared by
Alexandra Hill
Steve Colt
Institute of Social and Economic Research
University of Alaska Anchorage
3211 Providence Drive
Anchorage AK 99508
907-786-7710
June 3, 2000
This page left deliberately blank
Existing and Potential Local Contributions
To Village Safe Water Projects
Table of Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................. 1
2. ECONOMIC STATUS AND FISCAL CAPACITY OF VSW COMMUNITIES ........... 2
2.1. Program Description and Eligibility ................................................................................... 2
2.2. Characteristics of VSW-Eligible Communities .................................................................. 2
2.3. Tax Revenues ...................................................................................................................... 5
3. EXISTING LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS .................................................................... 7
3.1. Operations and Maintenance Expenditures ........................................................................ 7
3.2. Labor Contributions from Force Accounting ..................................................................... 9
3.3. Contributed Land .............................................................................................................. 11
4. POTENTIAL SIZE OF LOCAL CASH MATCHES ................................................. 11
4.1. Estimated Cash Match Amounts for All FY2000 VSW Grants ....................................... 11
4.2. Estimated Local Matches for Selected Multi-Year Projects ............................................. 12
5.
CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................... 12
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 14
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITIES ELIGIBLE FOR VILLAGE SAFE WATER GRANTS A-1
APPENDIX B: EXISTING WATER AND SANITATION SERVICES IN COMMUNITIES
ELIGIBLE FOR VSW GRANTS .................................................................................. B-1
APPENDIX C: FORCE ACCOUNT LABOR IN-KIND MATCH ESTIMATES ............. C-1
APPENDIX D: TOTAL AND AVERAGE PER CAPITA TAX COLLECTED BY VSWELIGIBLE INCORPORATED COMMUNITIES, 1998 ................................................. D-1
APPENDIX E: ESTIMATED FIVE PERCENT CASH MATCH REQUIREMENTS
APPLIED TO FY 2000 VSW GRANTS ........................................................................E-1
APPENDIX F: CASE STUDY ANALYSES OF POTENTIAL 5 PERCENT LOCAL
CASH MATCH REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... F-1
This page left deliberately blank
Existing and Potential Local Contributions
To Village Safe Water Projects
1. Introduction and Summary of Findings
This paper considers local contributions to Village Safe Water Program (VSW) projects. We
consider four types of existing or potential contributions:




local payment of operations and maintenance costs
contributed labor
contributed land
cash contributions toward construction costs
Summary of Findings

The average per capita income in VSW-eligible communities is between 30 and 40% lower
than the statewide average. All of the 80 communities that are eligible for VSW grants and
able (by virtue of being incorporated) to levy some sort of tax actually do collect local taxes.
Due to limited fiscal capacity, however, VSW communities collect only about $313 per
capita, or 27% of the per capita tax revenue collected by ineligible communities.

Although VSW communities do not currently pay a direct cash match toward construction,
they are responsible for 100% of the ongoing operation, maintenance, and management
(OMM) costs. Utility rates often fail to cover costs, which are high due to diseconomies of
small scale and remote, harsh operating conditions.

Those communities that use force accounting often contribute significant amounts to
construction efforts by providing labor at wage rates below the (legally) "prevailing" level
required for standard contracting. For the six representative projects analyzed here, the inkind contribution provided by force account labor ranged from 3 percent to over 20 percent
of total project cost. With one exception, these amounts greatly exceeded what would have
been provided by a 5% construction cash match.

Most sanitation facilities are built on municipal land provided at no cash cost to the State.
Many of these sites represent reconveyed ANCSA village corporation land. The
reconveyance process can be quite costly to the village corporations involved.

There is currently no requirement for communities to provide a direct cash match in order to
receive VSW assistance. A required local cash match equal to 5% of year 2000 VSW project
construction costs would generate an average required match of about $65,000 per
community for that year. Many projects require several years to complete.

Most projects serve a limited number of households. Case study analysis shows that a 5%
local cash match would range between $2,500 and $5,000 per household served for major
construction projects.
ISER / Local Contributions
1
June 3, 2000
2. Economic Status and Fiscal Capacity of VSW Communities
This section summarizes some relevant demographic and economic data for communities that are
served by the Village Safe Water (VSW) program.
2.1. Program Description and Eligibility
The Village Safe Water Program (VSW), administered by the Division of Facility Construction
and Operation of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, helps small Alaskan
communities to carry out water, sewerage and solid waste capital projects and related studies.
The program does this in several ways:1




Secures federal grant funds with state CIP matching funds.
Provides grants to small communities for water, sewerage and solid waste studies and
projects.
Assigns an engineer to each project to assist communities with planning, developing facility
design options and selection, and addressing regulatory issues.
Ensures appropriate and effective use of grant funds by disbursing funds to communities as
progress payments after review of invoices.
The grants do not pay operations or maintenance costs of the facilities built with VSW funds.
Local communities and facility users are responsible for these costs.
It is not possible to make a complete list of all the potential applicants for VSW grants. By
statute, second class cities, first class cities with populations less than 600, and unincorporated
areas with populations of between 25 and 600 are eligible. In addition, a larger community may
apply in order to provide service to a small isolated settlement within its boundaries. Tribal
governments and school districts may also apply. Appendix A lists 254 places that are
potentially eligible, along with their VSW grant activity (if any) for FY 2000 and 2001.
Although this list is not exhaustive, it does cover the great majority of eligible places. We can
use the list to compare the characteristics of VSW-eligible communities to the characteristics of
larger places that are not eligible for the program.
2.2. Characteristics of VSW-Eligible Communities
Population
The Alaska Department of Labor estimates population for about 350 places in the state. After
eliminating some of these places to avoid double counting, we developed a list of 328 places.
The list covers 540,422 people, or about 87% of the total Alaska population.2 We used the VSW
criteria to establish whether each place would be eligible for VSW grants or not. Although over
three-quarters of the identified places could apply for VSW grants, together these places account
1
Description taken from the Division of Facility Construction and Operation website:
http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dfco/aboutus.htm#Village
2
Most of the remainder of the population is suburban in character, living outside of designated places, in the
Matanuska-Susitna, Fairbanks, Kenai and Ketchikan boroughs
ISER / Local Contributions
2
June 3, 2000
for only about 12 percent of Alaska’s population. Error! Reference source not found. shows
that just over half of communities eligible for VSW grants are unincorporated; most of the rest
are second class cities, and a few are first class cities. Table 2 shows that most of these
communities are small. Almost one third had fewer than 100 residents in 1999, and 60 percent
had fewer than 250 residents. Appendix A lists the 254 places identified as VSW-eligible.
Table 1. Legal Status of VSW-Eligible Communities
Number
Percent of
Communities
6
2%
Second Class City
112
44%
Unincorporated
Total
136
254
54%
Type of incorporation
First Class City
Source: Alaska Department of Revenue. Alaska Taxable 1998
Table 2. Size of VSW Eligible Communities
Population, 1999
Fewer than 100
101 to 250
251 to 500
501 to 1000
More than 1,000
Total Number of Communities
Total Population of these
Communities
Percent of
Number Communities
76
73
65
37
3
254
30%
29%
26%
15%
1%
72,080
Source: Alaska Department Of Labor Research and Analysis Division, Population Estimates
1998
Income
Communities eligible for Village Safe Water grants have significantly lower per capita incomes
than other communities in the state. As shown in Table 3, the estimated per capita income in
VSW-eligible first class cities is almost 40% lower than it is in all first class cities taken together.
The second class cities – all of which are VSW-eligible – have average per capita income that is
33% below the level for all first class cities. These differences are largely tied to size: Small
Alaskan communities generally have lower per capita cash incomes than larger communities.
ISER / Local Contributions
3
June 3, 2000
Table 3. Per Capita Income by Community Type and VSW Eligibility, 1999
VSW Eligibility
Type of community
First Class City
Not Eligible
Eligible
Total
$18,989
$11,850
$18,574
Second Class City
$12,374
$12,374
Other Incorporated
$22,393
$22,393
Unincorporated
$21,677
$14,718
$19,541
Total
$22,163
$13,124
$21,326
Source: Calculated by authors from U.S. Census STF#3, Tables P98 through P105,
1990 and Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Local Area
Personal Income, 1990 and 1998
Water and Sanitation Facilities
The level of water and sanitation services currently available in communities eligible for VSW
grants varies widely. In May 1999, the Rural Utility Business Advisor Program (RUBA, part of
the Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development) surveyed communities with
population of less than 1,000 that have some type of sanitation system. They identified 192
communities, and completed surveys of 185 communities. Of these, 168 reported that they
provided some water or sanitation service; 17 did not provide any service. To identify services
provided in the VSW-eligible communities not included in the RUBA survey we used the Alaska
Community Database facility listing.
The level of sanitation available in communities that don’t offer services also varies widely.
Many communities that provide no services still have a substantial number of fully plumbed
houses that use individual wells and septic systems. Others are located where individual wells
and septic are not practical, and in those communities households use rain water or surface water
sources and honey buckets or outhouses. These two groups of communities are not readily
distinguishable in the table below. Appendix B lists all the communities and the services they
provide.
Table 4. VSW Eligible Communities Providing Water or Sewer Service
Piped Water
Sewer Service
Yes
No
Total
Yes
92
12
104
No
49
101
150
Total
141
113
254
Source: Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development
(DCED), RUBA Survey 1999 and Alaska Community Database.
ISER / Local Contributions
4
June 3, 2000
2.3. Tax Revenues
Incorporated communities can raise revenue by levying taxes. In Alaska, the sales tax is the
most common tax levied by communities. “Other Taxes” include taxes on lodging, raw fish,
fisheries business activity, car rentals, alcohol, fuel tax, tobacco, vehicle registration, and
gaming. All 80 incorporated communities that are eligible for VSW grants currently levy some
sort of tax. As with Alaska communities in general, the most common tax is the sales tax. Table
5 shows what taxes the VSW-eligible, incorporated communities have chosen to levy. The 174
unincorporated communities cannot levy taxes.
Table 5: Taxes Levied by VSW Eligible, Incorporated Communities
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Other Taxes
Number of
Communities
NO
NO
NO
0
YES
NO
NO
3
NO
YES
NO
59
YES
YES
NO
1
NO
NO
YES
9
YES
NO
YES
0
NO
YES
YES
6
YES
YES
YES
2
Source: Alaska Department of Revenue, 1998 Alaska Taxable
Table 6 shows how much revenue these communities were able to collect from their taxes. On a
per capita basis, “Other” taxes produced the most revenue. About 2/3 of the “other” taxes in
1998 were fish landing or fisheries business taxes. These taxes allow the communities that levy
them to tax non-residents, and to capture some of the value of nearby commercial fisheries.
Obviously the ability to levy fish-related taxes is strictly limited by geography.
Table 6. Total and Per Capita Tax Collected by
VSW-Eligible Incorporated Communities, 1998
Total
$7,667,199
$431,075
$4,494,325
$12,592,599
Tax Type
Sales Tax
Property Tax
Other Taxes
Total Taxes
Per capita
$277
$191
$352
$313
Source: Alaska Department of Revenue, 1998 Alaska Taxable
ISER / Local Contributions
5
June 3, 2000
Table 7 shows that VSW communities aren’t able to raise as much revenue through taxes on a
per capita basis as the average Alaska community. On average, VSW communities collect only
about 27% of the per capita tax revenue collected by ineligible communities. Sales taxes,
especially, are less effective revenue producers in small, remote communities because people
must make a relatively large share of their purchases outside the community.
Table 7. Tax Revenues Per Capita, by Community Type and VSW Eligibility, 1998
VSW Eligibility
Type of community
Not Eligible
First Class City
$1,136
Home Rule Borough
Eligible
$333
Total
$1,098
$10,371
$10,371
Home Rule City
$854
$854
Second Class Borough
$755
$755
Second Class City
$313
$313
Third Class Borough
$498
$498
Unified Home Rule
$931
$931
Grand Total
$1,169
$313
$1,120
Source: Alaska Department of Revenue, 1998 Alaska Taxable
In summary, the VSW-eligible communities are small and remote, by definition. They have
average per capita incomes about 40 percent lower than the state average. The tax revenue they
are able to raise, per capita, is 70 percent lower than Alaska’s average.3
This 70 percent figure does not count the large number of unincorporated communities that can’t raise any
revenue through taxation.
3
ISER / Local Contributions
6
June 3, 2000
3. Existing Local Contributions
In this section we describe the three major forms of existing local contributions to VSW projects:
operation and maintenance, force account labor, and contributed land.
3.1. Operation and Maintenance Expenditures
Although VSW communities do not currently pay a direct cash match toward construction, they
are responsible for 100% of the ongoing operation, maintenance, and management (OMM)
costs.4 Village Safe Water grants typically fund projects that serve small populations in remote
villages with harsh climates. For all these reasons, operations and maintenance costs tend to be
higher than average. Although there is little data available on rural utilities’ revenues and
expenditures, the RUBA program surveys rural utilities and includes questions about rates and
revenue shortfalls. This section reports data from their 1998 survey.
Table 8 and Table 9 look at communities providing piped water or sewer. Table 8 shows that a
flat rate charge was the most common type of rate structure. Table 9 looks at the range of fees
charged for monthly flat rate service, and compares them to Anchorage. The monthly rates
reported by these rural utilities ranged from under $10 per month to over $100. The overall
average of $46 (combined) is very close to Anchorage rates.
Table 8. How Communities with Piped Water or Sewer Bill for Services
Piped Water
& Sewer
Water Only
Sewer Only
Flat Rate
58
35
20
Metered
1
8
0
Both
18
18
3
Total
77
61
23
No Answer
8
20
4
Grand Total
85
81
27
Type of Billing
Source: Alaska DCED, RUBA 1999 Survey
4
Recent work by Haley (1999) documents the importance of the "management" factor in the OMM equation.
ISER / Local Contributions
7
June 3, 2000
Table 9. Rural Utility Rates for Piped Water and Sewer Systems
Water
Sewer
Combined
Minimum per Month
$5
$5
$10
Maximum per Month
$110
$110
$220
Mean per Month
$27
$27
$46
Number of Communities Reporting
45
44
74
Item: Anchorage rate per Month
$26
$22
$48
Source: Alaska DCED, RUBA 1999 Survey
Note: This table only looks at communities that charge flat rates
Of greater importance is the fact that in rural areas, rates often do not cover costs. Most
communities in the RUBA survey -- 93 out of 124 responses -- reported that their current charges
for service do not cover their identified water and sewer expenses.5 Table 10 shows that the
shortfalls range from under $5,000 to over $20,000. Communities have many ways of attempting
to make up the difference. Table 11 shows the more commonly listed sources of funds for
covering revenue shortfalls: As the list shows, communities are using all the revenue-producing
tools at their disposal to cover these costs.
Table 10. Number of Communities With Revenue Shortfall by Size of Shortfall
Do Revenues Cover
Water and Sewer Costs?
How Much More Revenue
Needed to Cover W & S
Costs?
No
Yes
Total
None
4
28
32
$0 - $5,000
12
2
14
$10,000 - $20,000
17
17
$5,000 - $10,000
26
26
More Than $20,000
34
1
35
Grand Total
93
31
124
Source: Alaska DCED, RUBA 1999 Survey
5
In addition to the identified expenses likely to be reported to the RUBA survey, it is highly likely that most
systems have significant additional costs that are "off the books" -- including especially staff time of City
Administrators, accountants, etc.
ISER / Local Contributions
8
June 3, 2000
Table 11. Sources of Revenue for Water and Sewer Expenses
Revenue Sharing
Tribal Council Funds
General Fund
Compacting Funds
Property Taxes
Cut back on operator hours
Sales Tax
Electric Coop
Gaming (Bingo and Pull-Tabs)
Equipment rental, building rents, etc.
Other Fees or Enterprise Funds
Gas sales, SAFE communities $
ANHB Grant
Liquor store
BIA Grant for Operator Wages
Washeteria funds
Raw fish tax
Clinic money
Cable TV
PILT
Source: Alaska DCED, RUBA 1999 Survey
3.2. Labor Contributions from Force Accounting
Many communities are making substantial in-kind contributions to the projects for which they
receive grants by providing local labor at rates below the prevailing wage rate. We looked at the
expenditures and wage rates for six of these communities using 1998 data, and estimated the
value of the in-kind contribution those communities provided.
Projects not using force accounting are generally required to pay prevailing wage rates. In the
case of many Village Safe Water grants, these are the wage rates used by the Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium. These are shown in Table 12.
By contrast, laborers provided by the local communities for VSW projects built under force
accounting arrangements often work for $10 to $15 per hour. The difference in wage rates saves
the project money or stretches a given amount further. The amounts saved can be substantial for
labor-intensive projects.
ISER / Local Contributions
9
June 3, 2000
Table 12. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Construction Wage Schedule
ANTHC Job Title
Hourly
Rate
Laborers
25.15
Tradeshelpers
25.94
Crew leaders
26.99
Power Equipment Operators, I
29.82
Power Equipment Operators, II
29.16
Carpenters
30.03
Plumbers
31.73
Superintendent I
35.02
Superintendent II
32.87
Superintendent III
30.26
Source: ANTHC, Dept of Environmental Health and
Engineering
We gathered data on expenditures and hours worked for six representative projects in Alakanuk,
Hooper Bay, Deering, Teller, Nulato and Napakiak in 1998. As Table 13 shows, the in-kind
contribution provided by force account labor ranged in these communities from 3 percent to over
20 percent of total project cost. With one exception, these amounts greatly exceeded what would
have been provided by a 5% cash match. The average amount of contributed wages is $125,000,
or about 13% of total project cost.
Table 13. Estimated In-Kind Labor Contribution to VSW Projects
in Six Rural Communities, 1998
Total Expenses in
1998
Community
In-Kind Labor
Contribution
In-Kind Contribution
as percent of
Expenses
Alakanuk
$1,219,000
$256,411
21%
Deering
$2,282,084
$159,839
7%
Teller
$127,226
$9,644
8%
Nulato
$185,600
$6,029
3%
$1,212,082
$242,310
20%
$561,256
$75,780
14%
$5,587,247
$750,012
13%
$931,208
$125,002
13%
Hooper Bay
Napakiak
Total
Average
Source: Authors’ estimates
ISER / Local Contributions
10
June 3, 2000
3.3. Contributed Land
Most facilities built with VSW funds are on municipal lands. According to retired land specialist
Rick Elliot,6 these sites are typically ANCSA village corporation lands that have been conveyed
to the local government under the ANCSA section 14 (c)(3) "reconveyance process." This
section of ANCSA requires that village corporations reconvey to municipal governments "as
much additional land as is necessary for community expansion, and appropriate rights of way for
public use, and other foreseeable community needs."7
While ANCSA requires that a minimum of 1,280 acres of land be transferred, the Act was silent
on when the transfers needed to be completed. In addition, for many (small!) village
corporations the administrative costs of carrying out the reconveyances have been substantial;
technical and legal assistance that used to be provided by state and federal agencies for these
purposes has long since disappeared. As a result, many village corporations have entered into
interim lease arrangements with municipalities to permit construction of sanitation facilities;
others have probably accelerated their 14 (c)(3) processes in response to community sanitation
needs.
Thus, while it is almost impossible to place dollar values on the lands provided by village
corporations and the communities themselves, it is clear that for most VSW projects, the required
lands have been provided at no cash cost to the project. While one could argue that the village
corporations were required by ANCSA to provide many of these sites, they nonetheless represent
a real diminution of the village corporation's land base. Perhaps more important, in most cases
they also represent a significant contribution of village corporation staff time and/or technical
and legal expenses necessary to carry out or accelerate the land transfers.
4. Potential Size of Local Cash Matches
In this section we consider the potential contributions that would be required under legislation
introduced in 1999. We first consider the potential required match amounts for all communities
that will receive FY 2000 VSW funding. Because many projects are phased over several years,
we then consider the potential cumulative match amounts for a subset of communities with good
data covering specific multi-year projects.
4.1. Estimated Cash Match Amounts for All FY2000 VSW Grants
For all FY 2000 VSW grant communities, we calculated how large a cash match they would
have had to pay under the proposed requirements of SB 1478. The calculated local matches
ranged from just under $2,000 to $175,000, with an average of about $40,000. The lower match
amounts were usually associated with design or feasibility studies or master plans. The complete
list of estimates is shown in Appendix E.
In almost all cases, SB 147 would have required a five percent local match on funds disbursed by
the State of Alaska for Village Safe Water projects. Because much of the federal funding for
these community projects passes through the state government, communities would have had to
6
personal communication with S. Colt, 7 February 2000.
P.L. 92-203, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, section 14 (c) (3)
8
A bill introduced in 1999.
7
ISER / Local Contributions
11
June 3, 2000
match federal as well as state dollars. In practice, this means that 5 percent of the total grant was
equal to 15 or 20 percent of the nonfederal funding, with the larger construction grants requiring
the higher percentage match.
4.2. Estimated Local Matches for Selected Multi-Year Projects
Because most projects are split into several phases, a community moving from honey buckets to
a piped water and sewer system typically needs to secure several grants over several years. In
order to see how a cash match requirement might add up over the life of an entire project, we
looked at four communities in more detail. These communities all have FY 2000 VSW grants
approved that serve a clearly defined number of households moving from honey buckets to piped
water and sewer systems. The analysis is shown in Appendix F.
The four case studies suggest that a single year’s 5% local match requirement is often around
$2,000 per household served. The total required match on a complete set of projects carried out
over many years ranges between $2,500 and $5,000 per household served. One way to consider
the burden such a requirement might impose is to calculate the amount by which monthly water
and sewer bills would have to be increased to cover the additional cost of the match. If the
match amounts were to be amortized and paid off over 20 years by a surcharge added to user
fees, the fees would have to be increased by between 25% and 45%.
5. Conclusions
The Village Safe Water program was created to help small remote communities obtain basic
water and sanitation facilities. In many of these small communities the cash economy and
employment are quite limited. The average per capita income in VSW-eligible communities is
between 30 and 40% lower than the statewide average.
Nonetheless, all of the 80 communities that are both eligible for VSW grants and able (by virtue
of being incorporated) to levy some sort of tax actually do collect local taxes. On average,
however, VSW communities manage to collect only about $313 per capita, or 27% of the per
capita tax revenue collected by ineligible communities. Sales taxes, especially, are less effective
revenue producers in small, remote communities because people must make a greater than
average share of their purchases outside the community.
A required local cash match equal to 5% of year 2000 VSW project construction costs would
range from just under $2,000 to $175,000 per community, with an average required match of
about $40,000. The lower match amounts are associated with design or feasibility studies or
master plans. While the average match for studies would be just over $6,000, the match for
construction projects averages over $65,000. This equates to a range of roughly $100 -- $150 per
person, or between 30% and 50% of total current local tax collections. Because most projects
take several years to complete, this burden would persist for several years.
Most projects serve a limited number of households. Our case study analysis suggests that a 5%
local cash match would range between $2,500 and $5,000 per household served for major
construction projects that eliminate honeybuckets.
Although VSW communities do not currently pay a direct cash match toward construction, they
are responsible for 100% of the ongoing operation, maintenance, and management (OMM) costs.
ISER / Local Contributions
12
June 3, 2000
Local users pay higher rates than Anchorage residents for service levels that often fall far below
piped plumbing. In addition, rates often fail to cover "booked" costs, and "booked" costs often
exclude other elements of the true cost of utility services. Communities attempt to make up the
differences with a variety of revenue sources, but their efforts are only partly successful.
Those communities that use force accounting often contribute significant amounts to
construction efforts by providing labor at wage rates below the (legally) "prevailing" level
required for standard contracting. For the six representative projects analyzed here, the in-kind
contribution provided by force account labor ranged from 3 percent to over 20 percent of total
project cost. With one exception, these amounts greatly exceeded what would have been
provided by a 5% cash match
Finally, most sanitation facilities are built on municipal land provided at no cash cost to the state.
Many of these sites represent reconveyed ANCSA village corporation land. The reconveyance
process can be quite costly to the village corporations involved.
ISER / Local Contributions
13
June 3, 2000
References
Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, Alaska Community Database
Online, http://www.dced.state.ak.us/mra/CF_COMDB.htm , April 2000
Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, Municipal and Regional
Assistance Division, Rural Utility Business Advisor Program, 1999 RUBA Utility Management
Survey
Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, Municipal and Regional
Assistance Division, Office of the State Assessor, Alaska Taxable 1998,
http://www.dced.state.ak.us/mra/98Taxable.pdf , April 2000
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Facility Construction and
Operation, Village Safe Water Community Grant Requests, FY 99 and FY 2000
Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Division, Employment & Earnings
Summary Report, 1997 and 1998, http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/ee , April 2000
Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Division, Population Estimates 1998
http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/pop/popest.htm , April 2000
Haley, Sharman, 2000. Evaluation of the Alaska Native Health Board's Sanitation Facility
Operation and Maintenance Program. Final Report on Phase II Projects. Institute of Social and
Economic Research. February. Available at
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/projects/ruralsan/ruralsan.htm
Office of Technology Assessment 1994. Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation.
Washington DC: National Technical Information Service. PB94181013
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population and
Housing, STF#3, http://venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup , April 2000
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2000.Total Personal
Income by Type of Income and Earnings by Industry, Regional Economic Information System:
1969-1997. http://govinfo.library.orst.edu/cgi-bin/reis-list?9_05-150.akc as of April 2000.
ISER / Local Contributions
14
June 3, 2000
Appendices
Appendix A. Communities Eligible for Village Safe Water Grants
Appendix B. Water and Sanitation Services Available in Communities Eligible for VSW
Grants
Appendix C. Force Account Labor In-Kind Match Estimates
Appendix D: Total and Average Per Capita Tax Collected by VSW-Eligible Incorporated
Communities, 1998
Appendix E. Five Percent Cash Match Applied to FY 2000 VSW Grants
Appendix A: Communities Eligible for Village Safe Water Grants
(does not include all eligible places)
Name
Akhiok
Akiachak city
Akiak
Akutan
Alakanuk
Alatna
Aleknagik
Alexander
Allakaket
Ambler
Anaktuvuk Pass
Anderson
Angoon
Aniak
Annette CDP
Anvik
Arctic Village CDP
Atka
Atmautluak city
Atqasuk
Beaver CDP
Bethel
Bettles
Big Delta CDP
Birch Creek CDP
Brevig Mission
Buckland
Cantwell CDP
Central CDP
Chalkyitsik CDP
Chase CDP
Chefornak
Chenega CDP
Chevak
Chickaloon CDP
Chignik
Chignik Lagoon CDP
Chignik Lake CDP
Chiniak CDP
Chistochina CDP
Chitina CDP
Chuathbaluk
Circle CDP
Circle Hot Springs Station
CDP
Clam Gulch CDP
Clarks Point
ISER
Status
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Pop.
109
560
316
408
671
34
259
39
192
315
308
524
587
576
45
100
138
115
296
259
126
5,463
25
511
35
274
408
166
62
102
55
423
69
741
212
121
68
136
75
52
94
112
89
35
113
63
A-1
Name
Coffman Cove
Cohoe CDP
Cold Bay
Cooper Landing CDP
Copper Center CDP
Copperville CDP
Covenant Life CDP
Crooked Creek CDP
Crown Point CDP
Cube Cove CDP
Deering
Delta Junction
Diomede
Dot Lake CDP
Dry Creek CDP
Eagle
Eagle Village CDP
Edna Bay CDP
Eek
Egegik
Ekwok
Elfin Cove CDP
Elim
Emmonak
Ester CDP
Evansville
False Pass
Ferry CDP
Fort Yukon
Fox CDP
Fox River CDP
Gakona /8
Galena
Gambell
Game Creek CDP
Glennallen CDP
Golovin
Goodnews Bay
Grayling
Gulkana CDP
Gustavus CDP
Halibut Cove CDP
Happy Valley CDP
Harding Lake CDP
Healy Lake CDP
Hobart Bay CDP
Hollis CDP
Status
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
First Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Pop.
255
602
103
285
553
194
67
137
91
139
156
884
176
61
115
168
32
55
309
132
120
50
306
838
240
50
58
74
553
332
439
82
544
670
50
494
142
256
195
90
377
71
401
30
61
48
111
June 3, 2000
Name
Holy Cross
Hooper Bay
Hope CDP
Houston
Hughes
Huslia
Hydaburg
Hyder CDP
Igiugig CDP
Iliamna CDP
Ivanof Bay CDP
Jakolof Bay CDP
Kachemak
Kaktovik
Kalifonsky CDP
Kaltag
Karluk CDP
Kasaan
Kasigluk city
Kasilof CDP
Kenny Lake CDP
Kiana
King Salmon CDP
Kipnuk CDP
Kivalina
Klukwan CDP (Chilkat)
Knik CDP
Kobuk
Kokahonak CDP
Koliganek CDP
Kongiganak CDP
Kotlik
Kotzebue
Koyuk
Koyukuk
Kupreanof
Kwethluk
Kwigillingok CDP
Lake Minchumina CDP
Larsen Bay
Levelock CDP
Lignite CDP
Lime Village CDP
Lower Kalskag
Lutak CDP /2
Manley Hot Springs CDP
Manokotak
Marshall
McCarthy CDP
ISER
Status
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
First Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
Pop.
277
1,039
130
939
72
248
405
126
62
93
29
40
419
255
338
250
41
41
528
548
507
402
499
573
349
136
483
102
163
205
359
552
2,964
296
130
24
667
360
38
127
131
131
62
286
53
88
396
300
37
A-2
Name
McGrath
McKinley Park CDP
Mekoryuk
Mendeltna CDP
Mentasta Lake CDP
Meyers Chuck CDP
Minto CDP
Moose Pass CDP
Mosquito Lake CDP
Mountain Village
Nanwalek (English Bay)
Napakiak
Napaskiak
Naukati Bay CDP
Nelson Lagoon CDP
New Stuyahok
Newhalen
Newtok city
Nightmute
Nikolaevsk CDP
Nikolai
Nikolski CDP
Noatak CDP
Nondalton
Noorvik
Northway CDP
Northway Junction CDP
Northway Village CDP
Nuiqsut
Nulato
Nunapitchuk
Old Harbor
Oscarville CDP
Ouzinkie
Paxson CDP
Pedro Bay CDP
Pelican
Perryville CDP
Pilot Point
Pilot Station
Pitkas Point CDP
Platinum
Pleasant Valley CDP
Point Baker CDP
Point Hope
Point Lay CDP
Port Alexander
Port Alsworth CDP
Status
Pop.
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
First Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
441
169
192
80
125
30
248
118
94
793
170
373
391
164
87
454
191
284
222
488
103
39
423
227
598
113
116
103
459
353
479
297
64
252
30
36
149
102
102
558
146
41
584
51
787
217
90
88
June 3, 2000
Name
Port Graham CDP
Port Heiden
Port Lions
Port Protection CDP
Primrose CDP
Quinhagak
Rampart CDP
Red Devil CDP
Ruby
Russian Mission
Saint Paul
Salcha CDP
Savoonga
Saxman
Scammon Bay
Selawik
Seldovia
Shageluk
Shaktoolik
Sheldon Point
Shishmaref
Shungnak
Skwentna CDP
Slana CDP
Sleetmute CDP
South Naknek CDP
St. George
St. Mary's
St. Michael
Stebbins
Stevens Village CDP
Stony River CDP
Sutton CDP
ISER
Status
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
First Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
First Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Pop.
178
126
242
50
62
612
66
44
204
295
761
387
632
379
450
746
281
152
226
161
538
257
72
55
103
132
173
494
362
548
92
35
470
A-3
Name
Takotna CDP
Talkeetna CDP
Tanacross CDP
Tanana
Tatitlek CDP
Tazlina*
Teller
Tenakee Springs
Tetlin CDP
Thorne Bay
Togiak
Toksook Bay
Tonsina CDP
Trapper Creek CDP
Tuluksak city
Tuntutuliak CDP
Tununak city
Twin Hills CDP
Tyonek CDP
Unalakleet
Upper Kalskag
Venetie CDP
Voznesenska (Kachemak
Bay)
Wainwright
Wales
Whale Pass CDP
White Mountain
Whitestone Logging Camp
CDP
Whittier
Willow CDP
Status
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
First Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
Pop.
48
363
86
317
105
294
262
101
89
597
801
515
47
344
443
350
331
76
160
784
268
232
unincorporated
Second Class City
Second Class City
unincorporated
Second Class City
unk
543
177
62
188
unincorporated
Second Class City
unincorporated
118
306
507
June 3, 2000
ISER
A-4
June 3, 2000
Appendix B:
Existing Water and Sanitation Services in Communities Eligible
for VSW Grants
The primary source of these data is the Rural Utility Business Advisor Program (RUBA)
survey of May 8999. For communities not included in the RUBA survey or not reporting
services, we used the Alaska Communities database , formerly maintained by the
Department of Community and Regional Development (DCRA), now the Department of
Community and Economic Development. Note that the RUBA survey did not ask about
the "community well" or "septic" categories while the Alaska Community Database
(DCRA) did provide that information. Therefore, communities with community well or
septic facilities that also reported other facilities to RUBA would not have the community
well or septic facilities reflected in this table.
Source
for
Honey Flush Cmty Cmty Recent VSW Facility
Community Name Type
Water Sewer Bucket Haul Well Septic
Project
Data
Akhiok
Second Class City
1
1
2001
RUBA
Akiachak
unincorporated
1
1
1
2000 2001 RUBA
Akiak
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Akutan
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Alakanuk
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Alatna
unincorporated
DCRA
Aleknagik
Second Class City
1
2001
both
Alexander *
unincorporated
DCRA
Allakaket
Second Class City
1
RUBA
Ambler
Second Class City
1
1
1
2001
RUBA
Anaktuvuk Pass
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Anderson
Second Class City
RUBA
Angoon
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Aniak
Second Class City
1
RUBA
Annette CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Anvik
Second Class City
1
1
2000
DCRA
Arctic Village
unincorporated
1
2000 2001 RUBA
Atka
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Atmautluak
unincorporated
1
1
2000
RUBA
Atqasuk
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Beaver
unincorporated
1
1
1
2000
RUBA
Bethel
Second Class City
1
1
2000 2001 DCRA
Bettles
Second Class City
RUBA
Big Delta CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Birch Creek
unincorporated
1
RUBA
Brevig Mission
Second Class City
1
1
2000 2001 RUBA
Buckland
Second Class City
1
1
1
2001
RUBA
Cantwell
unincorporated
RUBA
Central CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
ISER
B-1
June 3, 2000
Source
for
Honey Flush Cmty Cmty Recent VSW Facility
Community Name Type
Water Sewer Bucket Haul Well Septic
Project
Data
Chalkyitsik
unincorporated
1
2000
RUBA
Chase CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Chefornak
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Chenega Bay
unincorporated
1
1
RUBA
Chevak
Second Class City
1
1
2000 2001 RUBA
Chickaloon CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Chignik
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Chignik Lagoon
unincorporated
1
RUBA
Chignik Lake
unincorporated
1
1
RUBA
Chilkoot
unincorporated
DCRA
Chiniak CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Chistochina
unincorporated
1
both
Chitina CDP *
unincorporated
1
2000
DCRA
Chuathbaluk
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Circle
unincorporated
1
2001
RUBA
Circle Hot Springs
Station CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Clam Gulch CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Clark's Point
Second Class City
1
1
1
RUBA
Coffman Cove
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Cold Bay
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Cooper Landing CDP unincorporated
DCRA
Copper Center CDP * unincorporated
1
DCRA
Copperville CDP
unincorporated
1
DCRA
Covenant Life CDP unincorporated
1
1
DCRA
Crooked Creek
unincorporated
2000 2001 RUBA
Crown Point CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Cube Cove CDP
unincorporated
1
DCRA
Deering
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Delta Junction
Second Class City
DCRA
Diomede
Second Class City
1
RUBA
Dot Lake
unincorporated
1
1
2001
RUBA
Dry Creek CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Eagle
Second Class City
1
RUBA
Eagle Village
unincorporated
1
2000
RUBA
Edna Bay
unincorporated
RUBA
Eek
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Egegik
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Ekwok
Second Class City
1
2001
RUBA
Elfin Cove CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Elim
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Emmonak
Second Class City
1
1
2001
RUBA
Ester CDP
unincorporated
1
DCRA
Evansville *
unincorporated
2000
DCRA
ISER
B-2
June 3, 2000
Source
for
Honey Flush Cmty Cmty Recent VSW Facility
Community Name Type
Water Sewer Bucket Haul Well Septic
Project
Data
False Pass
Second Class City
1
RUBA
Ferry CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Fort Yukon
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Fox CDP
unincorporated
1
DCRA
Fox River CDP
unincorporated
1
DCRA
Gakona * /8
unincorporated
DCRA
Galena
First Class City
1
1
1
1
RUBA
Gambell
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Game Creek CDP
unincorporated
1
DCRA
Glennallen
unincorporated
1
RUBA
Golovin
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Goodnews Bay
Second Class City
1
RUBA
Grayling
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Gulkana
unincorporated
1
1
2000
RUBA
Gustavus
unincorporated
1
2001
both
Halibut Cove CDP unincorporated
1
DCRA
Happy Valley CDP unincorporated
DCRA
Harding Lake CDP unincorporated
DCRA
Healy Lake
unincorporated
1
1
1
2000
RUBA
Hobart Bay CDP
unincorporated
1
1
DCRA
Hollis
unincorporated
RUBA
Holy Cross
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Hooper Bay
Second Class City
1
2001
RUBA
Hope CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Houston
Second Class City
DCRA
Hughes
Second Class City
1
1
1
RUBA
Huslia
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Hydaburg
First Class City
1
1
RUBA
Hyder CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Igiugig
unincorporated
1
1
1
RUBA
Iliamna
unincorporated
1
RUBA
Ivanof Bay
unincorporated
1
2000 2001 DCRA
Jakolof Bay CDP
(Red Mountain)
unincorporated
DCRA
Kachemak
Second Class City
1
DCRA
Kaktovik
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Kalifonsky CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Kaltag
Second Class City
1
1
2000 2001 RUBA
Karluk
unincorporated
1
1
2001
RUBA
Kasaan
Second Class City
1
2001
RUBA
Kasigluk
unincorporated
1
1
2000 2001
both
Kasilof CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Kenny Lake CDP
unincorporated
1
DCRA
Kiana
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
ISER
B-3
June 3, 2000
Source
for
Honey Flush Cmty Cmty Recent VSW Facility
Community Name Type
Water Sewer Bucket Haul Well Septic
Project
Data
King Salmon
unincorporated
1
RUBA
Kipnuk
unincorporated
1
1
2000 2001
both
Kivalina
Second Class City
1
2000
RUBA
Klukwan
unincorporated
1
1
RUBA
Knik CDP *
unincorporated
DCRA
Kobuk
Second Class City
2000
RUBA
Kobuk
Second Class City
1
1
1
1999
DCRA
Kokhanok
unincorporated
1
1
RUBA
Koliganek
unincorporated
1
1
RUBA
Kongiganak
unincorporated
1
2000
RUBA
Kotlik
Second Class City
1
2001
RUBA
Kotzebue
Second Class City
1
1
1999
DCRA
Koyuk
Second Class City
1
1
1
RUBA
Koyukuk
Second Class City
1
RUBA
Kupreanof
Second Class City
DCRA
Kwethluk
Second Class City
1
2001
RUBA
Kwigillingok
unincorporated
RUBA
Lake Minchumina
CDP *
unincorporated
2001
DCRA
Larsen Bay
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Levelock
unincorporated
1
RUBA
Lignite CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Lime Village
unincorporated
1
both
Lower Kalskag
Second Class City
1
1
1
2000
RUBA
Lutak CDP /2
unincorporated
DCRA
Manley Hot Springs unincorporated
1
both
Manokotak
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Marshall
Second Class City
1
1
2001
RUBA
McCarthy CDP
unincorporated
2001
DCRA
McGrath
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
McKinley Park CDP unincorporated
DCRA
Mekoryuk
Second Class City
1
RUBA
Mendeltna CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Mentasta Lake
unincorporated
RUBA
Meyers Chuck
unincorporated
RUBA
Minto
unincorporated
1
1
2001
RUBA
Moose Pass CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Mosquito Lake CDP unincorporated
DCRA
Mountain Village
Second Class City
1
1
2001
RUBA
Naknek
unincorporated
1
RUBA
Nanwalek
unincorporated
1
1
2000
RUBA
Napakiak
Second Class City
1
1
2000 2001 RUBA
Napaskiak
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Naukati Bay
unincorporated
2000
RUBA
ISER
B-4
June 3, 2000
Source
for
Honey Flush Cmty Cmty Recent VSW Facility
Community Name Type
Water Sewer Bucket Haul Well Septic
Project
Data
Nelson Lagoon
unincorporated
1
2001
RUBA
New Stuyahok
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Newhalen
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Newtok
unincorporated
1
2000
RUBA
Nightmute
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Nikolaevsk
unincorporated
1
2001
DCRA
Nikolai
Second Class City
1
RUBA
Nikolski
unincorporated
1
1
RUBA
Noatak
unincorporated
1
1
RUBA
Nondalton
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Noorvik
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Northway
unincorporated
RUBA
Northway Junction
CDP
unincorporated
1
1
1996
DCRA
Northway Village
CDP (Northway *) unincorporated
1
1
1996
DCRA
Nuiqsut
Second Class City
1
1
2001
RUBA
Nulato
Second Class City
1
1
2001
RUBA
Nunapitchuk
Second Class City
1
1
1
2000 2001 RUBA
Old Harbor
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Oscarville
unincorporated
1
RUBA
Ouzinkie
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Paxson CDP
unincorporated
1
DCRA
Pedro Bay
unincorporated
1
2001
RUBA
Pelican
First Class City
1
RUBA
Perryville
unincorporated
1
1
2000
RUBA
Pilot Point
Second Class City
2000
RUBA
Pilot Station
Second Class City
1
1
3000 2001 RUBA
Pitka's Point
unincorporated
1
DCRA
Platinum
Second Class City
1
RUBA
Pleasant Valley CDP unincorporated
DCRA
Point Baker CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Point Hope
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Point Lay
unincorporated
1
1
RUBA
Port Alexander
Second Class City
1
2001
RUBA
Port Alsworth CDP unincorporated
2001
DCRA
Port Graham
unincorporated
1
1
2000
RUBA
Port Heiden
Second Class City
1
RUBA
Port Lions
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Port Protection
unincorporated
1
RUBA
Primrose CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Quinhagak
Second Class City
1
1
1
2000 2001 RUBA
Rampart
unincorporated
1
1
2000
RUBA
Red Devil
unincorporated
RUBA
ISER
B-5
June 3, 2000
Source
for
Honey Flush Cmty Cmty Recent VSW Facility
Community Name Type
Water Sewer Bucket Haul Well Septic
Project
Data
Ruby
Second Class City
1
2000
RUBA
Russian Mission
Second Class City
1
1
DCRA
Saint George
Second Class City
1
1
2001
RUBA
Saint Mary's
First Class City
1
1
1
2000 2001 RUBA
Saint Michael
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Saint Paul
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Salcha CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Savoonga
Second Class City
1
1
1
2000 2001 RUBA
Saxman
Second Class City
1
1
2001
RUBA
Scammon Bay
Second Class City
1
1
1
RUBA
Selawik
Second Class City
1
1
2000 2001 RUBA
Seldovia
First Class City
1
1
RUBA
Shageluk
Second Class City
1
RUBA
Shaktoolik
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Sheldon Point
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Shishmaref
Second Class City
1
1
1
1
RUBA
Shungnak
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Skwentna CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Slana CDP *
unincorporated
DCRA
Sleetmute
unincorporated
1
RUBA
South Naknek
unincorporated
1
1
DCRA
Stebbins
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Stevens Village
unincorporated
2001
RUBA
Stony River
unincorporated
RUBA
Sutton CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Takotna
unincorporated
1
both
Talkeetna CDP
unincorporated
1
1
DCRA
Tanacross
unincorporated
1
1
2000
RUBA
Tanana
First Class City
1
1
2000 2001 RUBA
Tatitlek
unincorporated
1
1
2000
RUBA
Tazlina*
unincorporated
1
DCRA
Teller
Second Class City
1
1
1
RUBA
Tenakee Springs
Second Class City
RUBA
Tetlin
unincorporated
RUBA
Thorne Bay
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Togiak
Second Class City
1
1
1
2000
RUBA
Toksook Bay
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Tonsina CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
Trapper Creek CDP unincorporated
DCRA
Tuluksak
unincorporated
1
1
1
RUBA
Tuntutuliak
unincorporated
1
2001
RUBA
Tununak
unincorporated
1
1
2000 2001 RUBA
Twin Hills
unincorporated
1
1
2001
RUBA
Tyonek
unincorporated
1
1
RUBA
ISER
B-6
June 3, 2000
Source
for
Honey Flush Cmty Cmty Recent VSW Facility
Community Name Type
Water Sewer Bucket Haul Well Septic
Project
Data
Unalakleet
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Upper Kalskag
Second Class City
1
RUBA
Venetie
unincorporated
1
RUBA
Wainwright
Second Class City
1
1
RUBA
Wales
Second Class City
1
1
1
RUBA
Whale Pass CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
White Mountain
Second Class City
1
1
2001
RUBA
Whitestone Logging
Camp CDP
unincorporated
1
1
DCRA
Whittier
Second Class City
1
1
2000
RUBA
Willow CDP
unincorporated
DCRA
ISER
B-7
June 3, 2000
[intentionally blank]
ISER
B-8
June 3, 2000
Appendix C: Force Account Labor In-Kind Match Estimates
Notes:
The job titles used in comparing actual force account wage rates to hypothetical
prevailing wage rates did not always match; the closest available equivalent was used.
Some wage rates appeared higher than the ANTHS wage rates, resulting in a negative inkind match for that worker. Those negative amounts are included in calculating the total.
ISER
C-1
June 3, 2000
Table C-1. Alakanuk Force Account Labor In Kind Match
Force Account
Job Title
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
CLERICAL
PLUMBER
PLUMBER
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
Total
Hourly
Wage
$
10.00
$
12.50
$
12.00
$
14.71
$
12.00
$
6.00
$
16.00
$
12.00
$
13.00
$
14.00
$
13.50
$
14.17
$
12.00
$
13.65
$
12.60
$
14.70
$
14.00
$
12.60
$
12.00
$
13.32
$
12.30
$
12.00
$
15.75
$
12.00
$
16.00
$
19.00
$
16.00
$
31.00
$
42.00
Total Expenses
$1,219,000
ISER
Regular Time
Hours
47.50
125.50
72.00
890.00
189.50
243.00
304.00
1,056.00
648.00
758.50
416.00
350.00
245.50
336.50
558.50
1,002.50
227.50
260.00
475.50
970.00
891.50
609.50
720.00
16.00
1,053.50
655.00
1,077.50
1,026.00
1,405.00
16,630.00
In-Kind match
$256,411
Overtime
Hours
10.00
54.50
22.50
309.50
65.50
110.00
158.00
552.50
249.50
241.50
167.50
103.50
101.50
89.00
172.00
383.50
56.00
63.50
142.00
369.50
259.50
195.00
325.00
3.00
463.00
252.00
520.00
476.00
951.50
6,866.50
Regular Time
Wage
$
475.00
$
1,568.75
$
864.00
$
13,022.32
$
2,274.00
$
1,458.00
$
4,864.00
$
13,716.00
$
7,728.00
$
11,032.00
$
5,296.00
$
4,809.42
$
2,946.00
$
4,577.95
$
7,022.70
$
14,490.35
$
3,185.00
$
3,263.10
$
5,450.00
$
12,807.76
$
10,864.80
$
6,851.00
$
11,072.25
$
192.00
$
17,406.40
$
12,441.00
$
17,794.00
$
31,806.00
$
59,031.00
$
288,308.80
Overtime
Wage
$
150.00
$
1,021.88
$
405.00
$
6,792.13
$
1,179.00
$
993.00
$
3,792.00
$
10,779.76
$
4,485.00
$
5,283.09
$
3,205.88
$
2,124.02
$
1,827.00
$
1,818.38
$
3,246.75
$
8,300.80
$
1,176.00
$
1,197.00
$
2,425.50
$
7,311.57
$
4,741.45
$
3,273.00
$
7,494.20
$
54.00
$
11,478.60
$
7,180.13
$
12,897.60
$
22,134.00
$
59,944.50
$
196,711.24
ANTHC Total Pay @
Wage ANTHC Wage
25.15
1,572
25.15
5,212
25.15
2,660
25.15
34,059
25.15
7,237
25.15
10,261
25.15
13,606
25.15
47,401
25.15
25,710
25.15
28,187
25.15
16,781
25.15
12,707
25.15
10,003
25.15
11,821
25.15
20,535
25.15
39,680
25.15
7,834
25.15
8,935
25.15
17,316
25.15
38,335
25.15
32,211
25.15
22,685
25.15
30,369
25.15
516
25.15
43,962
31.73
32,777
31.73
58,938
35.02
60,935
35.02
99,185
In-Kind
Match
$
947
$
2,622
$
1,391
$ 14,245
$
3,784
$
7,810
$
4,950
$ 22,906
$ 13,497
$ 11,872
$
8,279
$
5,774
$
5,230
$
5,424
$ 10,266
$ 16,889
$
3,473
$
4,474
$
9,440
$ 18,216
$ 16,605
$ 12,561
$ 11,802
$
270
$ 15,077
$ 13,156
$ 28,247
$
6,995
$ (19,790)
$ 256,411
Percent match
21%
C-2
June 3, 2000
Table C-2. Hooper Bay Force Account Labor In Kind Match *
Force Account
Job Title
OPERATOR
OPERATOR
OPERATOR
OPERATOR
OPERATOR
OPERATOR
OPERATOR
OPERATOR
OPERATOR
OPERATOR
OPERATOR
OPERATOR
OPERATOR
PLUMBER
PLUMBER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
Total
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Expenses
$1,212,082
ISER
Hourly
Wage
16.00
17.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
17.00
16.00
17.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
35.00
30.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
12.00
12.00
13.00
12.00
15.00
14.00
In-Kind match
$242,310
Regular Time
Hours
483.50
820.00
851.50
792.00
349.50
686.00
731.50
769.50
744.00
833.50
664.50
513.00
679.50
124.00
123.00
191.50
350.00
681.00
423.00
33.00
404.50
8.50
3.00
751.00
12,010.50
Overtime
Hours
202.50
394.50
360.00
336.00
130.00
278.50
320.00
256.50
332.50
337.00
290.50
231.50
225.50
118.50
119.50
59.50
158.50
284.00
175.50
317.00
4,927.50
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Regular Time
Wage
7,736.00
13,940.00
13,624.00
12,672.00
5,592.00
10,976.00
11,704.00
13,081.50
11,904.00
14,169.50
10,632.00
8,183.50
10,872.00
4,340.00
3,690.00
2,298.00
4,550.00
9,534.00
4,938.00
396.00
5,258.50
102.00
45.00
10,514.00
190,752.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Overtime
Wage
4,860.00
10,059.75
8,640.00
8,064.00
3,120.00
6,684.00
7,680.00
6,540.75
7,980.00
8,593.50
6,972.00
5,550.75
5,412.00
6,221.25
5,377.50
1,071.00
3,090.75
5,964.00
3,087.00
6,657.00
121,625.25
ANTHC
Total Pay @
Wage
ANTHC Wage
29.49 23,216
29.49 41,633
29.49 41,035
29.49 38,219
29.49 16,057
29.49 32,550
29.49 35,727
29.49 34,039
29.49 36,649
29.49 39,487
29.49 32,446
29.49 25,369
29.49 30,013
31.73 9,575
31.73 9,590
25.15 7,061
25.15 14,782
25.15 27,841
25.15 17,259
25.15
830
25.15 10,173
25.15
214
25.15
75
25.15 30,846
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
In-Kind
Match
10,620
17,633
18,771
17,483
7,345
14,890
16,343
14,417
16,765
16,724
14,842
11,635
13,729
(987)
523
3,692
7,141
12,343
9,234
434
4,915
112
30
13,675
242,310
Percent match
20%
C-3
June 3, 2000
Table C-3. Deering Force Account Labor In Kind Match
Force Account
Job Title
CARPENTER
CARPENTER
CARPENTER
CARPENTER
CARPENTER
CARPENTER
CARPENTER
PLUMBER
PLUMBER
PLUMBER
PLUMBER
PLUMBER
PLUMBER
PLUMBER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
CLERICAL
ELECTRICAN
ELECTRICAN
ELECTRICAN
ELECTRICAN
OPERATOR
FOREMAN
Total
Hourly
Wage
$ 17.60
$ 17.60
$ 30.00
$ 36.00
$ 17.50
$ 15.75
$ 28.00
$ 18.25
$ 30.00
$ 30.00
$ 17.50
$ 17.50
$ 38.00
$ 32.00
$ 14.75
$ 14.75
$ 15.00
$ 15.00
$ 15.00
$ 15.00
$ 16.00
$ 38.00
$ 38.00
$ 17.50
$ 38.00
$ 22.05
$ 44.00
Total Expenses
$2,282,084
ISER
Regular Time
Hours
407.00
730.00
718.00
200.00
849.00
962.50
360.00
668.00
680.00
352.00
926.50
583.00
40.00
280.00
298.00
294.00
426.50
388.00
280.00
185.00
795.50
72.00
110.00
824.00
544.00
900.50
908.00
13,781.50
In-Kind match
$159,839
Overtime
Hours
195.00
332.50
395.50
112.00
356.00
434.00
217.00
250.50
383.00
162.00
392.50
213.50
10.00
144.00
120.50
120.50
173.00
152.50
130.00
44.00
11.00
46.00
41.00
342.00
256.00
355.50
633.00
6,022.50
Regular Time
Wage
$
7,163.20
$ 12,848.00
$ 19,140.00
$ 7,200.00
$ 14,857.50
$ 16,491.75
$ 10,080.00
$ 12,191.01
$ 21,520.00
$ 10,560.00
$ 16,205.75
$ 9,642.50
$ 1,520.00
$ 8,960.00
$ 4,395.50
$
4,336.50
$ 6,397.50
$ 5,820.00
$ 4,200.00
$ 2,775.00
$ 12,728.00
$ 2,128.00
$ 4,180.00
$ 14,420.00
$ 20,672.00
$ 19,856.03
$ 39,952.00
$ 310,240.24
Overtime
Wage
$ 5,148.00
$ 8,778.00
$ 15,817.50
$ 6,048.00
$ 9,345.01
$ 11,166.01
$ 9,114.00
$ 6,857.44
$ 18,321.00
$ 7,290.00
$ 10,300.14
$ 5,308.14
$
570.00
$
6,912.00
$ 2,666.06
$ 2,666.07
$ 3,892.50
$ 3,431.25
$ 2,925.00
$
990.00
$
264.00
$ 2,137.50
$ 2,337.00
$ 8,977.51
$ 14,592.00
$ 11,758.19
$ 41,778.00
$ 219,390.32
ANTHC Total Pay @
Wage ANTHC Wage
30.03
21,006
30.03
36,899
30.03
39,377
30.03
11,051
30.03
41,531
30.03
48,453
30.03
20,586
31.73
33,118
31.73
39,805
31.73
18,879
31.73
48,079
31.73
28,660
31.73
1,745
31.73
15,738
25.15
12,041
25.15
11,940
25.15
17,253
25.15
15,511
25.15
11,946
25.15
6,313
25.15
20,422
31.73
4,474
31.73
5,442
31.73
42,423
31.73
29,445
29.49
42,281
35.02
65,050
In-Kind
Match
$
8,695
$
15,273
$
4,419
$
(2,197)
$
17,329
$
20,796
$
1,392
$
14,070
$
(36)
$
1,029
$
21,573
$
13,709
$
(345)
$
(134)
$
4,979
$
4,937
$
6,963
$
6,260
$
4,821
$
2,548
$
7,430
$
208
$
(1,075)
$
19,026
$
(5,819)
$
10,667
$
(16,680)
$
159,839
Percent match
7%
C-4
June 3, 2000
Table C-4. Teller Force Account Labor In Kind Match
Force Account
Job Title
PLUMBER
PLUMBER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
FOREMAN
Total
Hourly
Wage
$ 25.00
$ 25.00
$ 15.00
$ 15.00
$ 15.00
$ 15.00
$ 35.00
Total Expenses
Regular Time
Hours
56.00
49.00
40.00
111.50
21.50
241.50
231.50
751.00
In-Kind match
$9,644
$127,226
Overtime
Hours
20.50
67.00
9.00
213.50
208.00
518.00
Regular Time
Wage
$ 1,400.00
$ 1,225.00
$
600.00
$ 1,672.50
$
322.50
$ 3,622.50
$ 8,102.50
$ 16,945.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Overtime
Wage
461.25
1,507.50
202.50
4,803.75
10,920.00
17,895.00
ANTHC Total Pay @
Wage ANTHC Wage
31.73
1,777
31.73
1,555
25.15
1,779
25.15
5,332
25.15
880
25.15
14,128
35.02
19,033
Overtime
Wage
480.00
357.00
99.00
303.75
247.50
4,935.00
6,422.25
ANTHC Total Pay @
Wage ANTHC Wage
25.15
4,175
25.15
2,452
25.15
1,138
25.15
1,515
25.15
3,106
35.02
9,876
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
In-Kind
Match
377
330
718
2,152
355
5,702
11
9,644
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
In-Kind
Match
2,543
1,087
595
612
1,187
6
6,029
Percent match
8%
Table C-5. Nulato Force Account
Labor In Kind Match
Force Account
Job Title
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
FOREMAN
Total
Total Expenses
$185,600
ISER
Hourly
Wage
$ 16.00
$ 14.00
$ 12.00
$ 15.00
$ 15.00
$ 35.00
Regular Time
Hours
112.00
72.00
37.00
40.00
107.00
141.00
509.00
In-Kind match
$6,029
Overtime
Hours
36.00
17.00
5.50
13.50
11.00
94.00
177.00
Regular Time
Wage
$ 1,152.00
$ 1,008.00
$
444.00
$
600.00
$ 1,672.00
$ 4,935.00
$ 9,811.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Percent match
3%
C-5
June 3, 2000
Table C-6. Napakiak Force Account Labor In Kind Match
Force Account
Job Title
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
LABORER
CARPENTER
CARPENTER
CARPENTER
CARPENTER
CARPENTER
CARPENTER
CARPENTER
CARPENTER
PLUMBER
PLUMBER
ELECTRICIAN
Total
Total Expenses
$561,256
ISER
Hourly Wage
$
12.50
$
13.00
$
12.00
$
12.00
$
13.00
$
13.00
$
12.00
$
12.50
$
12.00
$
12.00
$
13.00
$
13.00
$
12.50
$
12.50
$
12.00
$
12.00
$
14.50
$
14.50
$
14.50
$
14.50
$
14.50
$
18.00
$
14.50
$
14.50
$
18.00
$
16.00
$
24.50
In-Kind match
$75,780
Regular Time
Hours
312.00
69.00
23.00
24.00
39.00
149.50
40.00
13.00
300.50
5.00
196.00
38.00
34.00
610.00
16.00
5.00
236.50
5.00
382.50
287.00
300.50
227.50
10.00
296.00
266.00
152.00
17.00
4,054.00
Overtime
Hours
38.50
7.50
2.00
3.00
40.50
18.00
49.00
33.00
3.00
187.00
4.50
39.00
99.00
46.50
60.50
56.00
47.50
54.50
28.00
2.00
819.00
Regular Time
Wage
$ 4,284.00
$
897.00
$
276.00
$
288.00
$
500.00
$ 1,943.50
$
480.00
$
162.50
$
3,472.75
$
60.00
$ 2,548.00
$
494.00
$
425.00
$ 5,379.50
$
192.00
$
60.00
$
3,429.25
$
67.50
$ 5,401.25
$ 4,161.50
$ 4,357.25
$ 4,095.00
$
145.00
$ 4,280.00
$ 4,788.00
$ 2,432.00
$
416.50
$ 55,035.50
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Overtime
Wage
807.38
146.25
36.00
58.50
789.75
324.00
870.00
643.50
58.50
2,908.14
81.00
848.25
2,142.00
1,011.38
1,315.88
1,512.00
1,033.13
1,471.50
672.00
73.50
16,802.66
ANTHC Total Pay @
Wage ANTHC Wage
25.15
9,299
25.15
2,018
25.15
654
25.15
604
25.15
1,094
25.15
5,288
25.15
1,685
25.15
327
25.15
9,406
25.15
126
25.15
6,174
25.15
1,069
25.15
855
25.15
22,396
25.15
572
25.15
126
30.03
8,859
30.03
150
30.03
15,946
30.03
10,713
30.03
11,749
30.03
9,354
30.03
300
30.03
11,029
31.73
11,034
31.73
6,156
31.73
635
In-Kind
Match
$ 4,208
$
975
$
342
$
316
$
536
$ 2,555
$
881
$
164
$ 5,063
$
66
$ 2,983
$
516
$
430
$ 14,108
$
299
$
66
$ 4,581
$
83
$ 8,403
$ 5,540
$ 6,076
$ 3,747
$
155
$ 5,715
$ 4,775
$ 3,052
$
145
$
75,780
Percent match
14%
C-6
June 3, 2000
Appendix D: Total and Average Per Capita Tax Collected by
VSW-Eligible Incorporated Communities, 1998
Sales Tax
Communities with Sales Tax
Communities reporting amount of sales tax collected
Total sales tax reported
Total Population, communities reporting sales tax
amounts9
Average Per Capita Sales Tax
Property Tax
Communities with Property Tax
Total property tax reported
Total Population, communities with property tax
Average Per Capita Property Tax
Other Taxes
Communities with Other taxes
Total other tax reported
Total Population, communities with other taxes
Average Per Capita Other Tax
68
44
$7,667,199
27,700
$277
6
$431,075
2,262
$191
17
$4,494,325
12,763
$352
Total Taxes
Communities with Sales, Property or Other Tax
80
Communities fully reporting amount of tax collected
56
Total tax reported
$12,592,599
Total Population, communities fully reporting tax amounts
40,169
Average Per Capita Total Tax
$313
9
Some communities with sales taxes do not report the amount collected. This portion of the table is
restricted to those communities that both collect sales tax and report the amount collected.
ISER
D-1
June 3, 2000
Appendix E: Estimated Five Percent Cash Match Requirements
Applied to FY 2000 VSW Grants
For all FY 2000 VSW grant communities, we estimated the cash match required under the
proposed requirements of SB 14710. In almost all cases, SB 147 would have required a five
percent match on funds disbursed for Village Safe Water projects. Because much of the federal
funding for these community projects passes through the state government, this means
communities would have had to match federal as well as state dollars. This means that 5 percent
of the total grant was 15 or 20 percent of the non federal funding for these grants, with the larger
construction grants requiring the higher percentage match. The calculated local matches ranged
from just under $2,000 to $175,000, with an average of about $40,000.
10
ISER
A bill introduced in 1999.
E-1
June 3, 2000
Existing and Potential Local Contributions to Village Safe Water Projects
Municipality
Project Title
Total Federal
Total State
Total Auth
Local Share @
5%
State Share
after local
Match
Local /
State
Noorvik, City of
Anchor Point Safe Water
Corporation
River Drive Water and Sewer Extension
$ 980,000
$ 490,000
$ 1,470,000
$ 73,500
$ 416,500
15%
Water System Expansion Project
$ 800,000
$ 400,000
$ 1,200,000
$ 60,000
$ 340,000
15%
Tanacross, Village of
Water Facility Improvement
$ 1,466,667
$ 733,333
$ 2,200,000
$ 110,000
$ 623,333
15%
Chignik, City of
Water and Sewer System Improvements
Septic Systems Rehab., Well Water
Treatment Upgrades & Landfill Reloc
$ 1,120,000
$ 560,000
$ 1,680,000
$ 84,000
$ 476,000
15%
$ 900,000
$ 450,000
$ 1,350,000
$ 67,500
$ 382,500
15%
$ 726,667
$ 363,333
$ 1,090,000
$ 54,500
$ 308,833
15%
$ 1,243,333
$ 621,667
$ 1,865,000
$ 93,250
$ 528,417
15%
$ 824,000
$ 412,000
$ 1,236,000
$ 61,800
$ 350,200
15%
$ 1,133,333
$ 566,667
$ 1,700,000
$ 85,000
$ 481,667
15%
Water Treatment Plant with Washeteria
Community Water & Sewer System, Phase
I
$ 893,333
$ 446,667
$ 1,340,000
$ 67,000
$ 379,667
15%
$ 874,333
$ 437,167
$ 1,311,500
$ 65,575
$ 371,592
15%
$ 912,667
$ 456,333
$ 1,369,000
$ 68,450
$ 387,883
15%
Napakiak, City of
Water and Sewer
Citywide Flush Tank and Haul and
Washeteria Renovation Project
$ 832,733
$ 416,367
$ 1,249,100
$ 62,455
$ 353,912
15%
Kongiganak, Native Village of
Washeteria Construction - Phase IIB
$ 866,667
$ 433,333
$ 1,300,000
$ 65,000
$ 368,333
15%
Quinhagak, Native Village of
Sanitation Facilities Improvement Project
$ 1,300,000
$ 650,000
$ 1,950,000
$ 97,500
$ 552,500
15%
Elim, City of
Water Source and Transmission Line
$ 669,333
$ 334,667
$ 1,004,000
$ 50,200
$ 284,467
15%
Chevak, City of
Water and Sewer Project - Final Phase
$ 2,550,000
$ 850,000
$ 3,400,000
$ 170,000
$ 680,000
20%
Port Lions, City of
Water Dam Replacement
Phase I - Sanitation Facilities Improvement
Project
$ 500,000
$ 250,000
$ 750,000
$ 37,500
$ 212,500
15%
$ 666,667
$ 333,333
$ 1,000,000
$ 50,000
$ 283,333
15%
Septage and Landfill Study
$ 72,733
$ 36,367
$ 109,100
$ 5,455
$ 30,912
15%
Tununak Traditional Council
Flush tank and Haul
$ 543,333
$ 271,667
$ 815,000
$ 40,750
$ 230,917
15%
Brevig Mission
Water and Sewer Project - Phase III
$ 1,875,000
$ 625,000
$ 2,500,000
$ 125,000
$ 500,000
20%
Savoonga, City of
Water and Sewer Project
$ 1,772,250
$ 590,750
$ 2,363,000
$ 118,150
$ 472,600
20%
Healy Lake, Native Village
Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Master Plan
$ 66,667
$ 33,333
$ 100,000
$ 5,000
$ 28,333
15%
Pilot Point, City of
Tatitlek, Native Village
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Egegik, City of
Water Project
Shoup Street Service Area Water and Sewer
Improvements
Phase II Water and Sewer Improvement
Project
Voznesenka Homeowners Assn. Water System
Deering, City of
Sheldon Point, City of
Eek, City of
Napaskiak Native Village
Ivanof Bay (Lake and Peninsula
Borough)
ISER
E-2
June 3, 2000
Existing and Potential Local Contributions to Village Safe Water Projects
Municipality
Project Title
Total Federal
Total State
Total Auth
Local Share @
5%
State Share
after local
Match
Local /
State
Perryville, Native Village of
Water Project
$ 133,333
$ 66,667
$ 200,000
$ 10,000
$ 56,667
15%
Nunapitchuk, City of
Water and Sanitation Improvements
$ 633,333
$ 316,667
$ 950,000
$ 47,500
$ 269,167
15%
Rampart Village Council
Water and Sewer
$ 337,500
$ 112,500
$ 450,000
$ 22,500
$ 90,000
20%
Crooked Creek
Master Plan
Planning and Feasibility Study for
Community Sanitation Facilities
$ 116,667
$ 58,333
$ 175,000
$ 8,750
$ 49,583
15%
$ 50,000
$ 25,000
$ 75,000
$ 3,750
$ 21,250
15%
$ 1,500,000
$ 500,000
$ 2,000,000
$ 100,000
$ 400,000
20%
$ 747,750
$ 249,250
$ 997,000
$ 49,850
$ 199,400
20%
Eagle Village
Tanana
Nanwalek, Native Village of
Sanitation Improvements, Phase II
Water Source Development, Treatment and
Distribution System Upgrades
Atka, City of
Sanitation Improvement Study
$ 103,333
$ 51,667
$ 155,000
$ 7,750
$ 43,917
15%
Gulkana
Gulkana Village Master Plan
$ 100,000
$ 50,000
$ 150,000
$ 7,500
$ 42,500
15%
Whittier, City of
Sewer System Improvements
$ 712,000
$ 356,000
$ 1,068,000
$ 53,400
$ 302,600
15%
Selawik, City of
Water and Sewer Project, Phase II and III
$ 2,625,000
$ 875,000
$ 3,500,000
$ 175,000
$ 700,000
20%
Anvik, City of
Water and Sewer Project
$ 328,500
$ 109,500
$ 438,000
$ 21,900
$ 87,600
20%
Chuathbaluk, City of
Master Utility Plan
$ 83,333
$ 41,667
$ 125,000
$ 6,250
$ 35,417
15%
Chitina
Master Sanitation Utility Plan
$ 83,333
$ 41,667
$ 125,000
$ 6,250
$ 35,417
15%
Newtok Traditional Council
Sanitation Facilities Plan and Demo Project
$ 183,333
$ 91,667
$ 275,000
$ 13,750
$ 77,917
15%
Kiana, City of
$ 1,200,000
$ 400,000
$ 1,600,000
$ 80,000
$ 320,000
20%
Port Graham, Native Village of
Water Treatment Plant Replacement
Water Source Development, Treatment and
Distribution System Upgrades
$ 528,000
$ 176,000
$ 704,000
$ 35,200
$ 140,800
20%
Evansville
Sanitation Feasibility Study
$ 56,667
$ 28,333
$ 85,000
$ 4,250
$ 24,083
15%
Akiachak Native Community
Water and Sewer Improvement
$ 1,500,000
$ 500,000
$ 2,000,000
$ 100,000
$ 400,000
20%
Old Minto Camp
Sanitation Facilities Master Plan Survey
$ 66,667
$ 33,333
$ 100,000
$ 5,000
$ 28,333
15%
Akiak, City of
Water and Sewer project, Phase V
$ 733,500
$ 244,500
$ 978,000
$ 48,900
$ 195,600
20%
Gambell, City of
$ 333,333
$ 166,667
$ 500,000
$ 25,000
$ 141,667
15%
Ruby, City of
Water Feasibility Study
Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design of
Water and Sewer System
$ 100,000
$ 50,000
$ 150,000
$ 7,500
$ 42,500
15%
Beaver Village Council
Washeteria/Water Treatment Plant Upgrade
$ 239,025
$ 79,675
$ 318,700
$ 15,935
$ 63,740
20%
Pilot Station, City of
Water and Sewer Project - Phase IV
$ 1,013,250
$ 337,750
$ 1,351,000
$ 67,550
$ 270,200
20%
Kobuk, City of
Water and Sewer Installation Project
$ 178,500
$ 59,500
$ 238,000
$ 11,900
$ 47,600
20%
Atmautluak
Sanitation Facilities Master Plan
$ 100,000
$ 50,000
$ 150,000
$ 7,500
$ 42,500
15%
ISER
E-3
June 3, 2000
Existing and Potential Local Contributions to Village Safe Water Projects
Municipality
Project Title
Total Federal
Total State
Total Auth
Local Share @
5%
State Share
after local
Match
Local /
State
Chalkyitsik, City of
Water and Sewer Study
$ 33,333
$ 16,667
$ 50,000
$ 2,500
$ 14,167
15%
Naukati West, Inc.
$ 33,333
$ 16,667
$ 50,000
$ 2,500
$ 14,167
15%
$ 2,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 3,000,000
$ 150,000
$ 850,000
15%
$ 50,000
$ 25,000
$ 75,000
$ 3,750
$ 21,250
15%
$ 50,000
$ 25,000
$ 75,000
$ 3,750
$ 21,250
15%
$ 24,467
$ 12,233
$ 36,700
$ 1,835
$ 10,398
15%
Lower Kalskag, City of
Naukati Sewer and Water Study
Water and Wastewater Improvements Phase II
Crooked Creek Johnny John Sr. School
Sewer System Feasibility Study
Study and Pre-design of Water and
Wastewater
Akula School Sewer Disposal Feasibility
Study
Water and Sewer System Plan and
Evaluation
$ 100,000
$ 50,000
$ 150,000
$ 7,500
$ 42,500
15%
McGrath, City of
Water and Sewer Master Plan
$ 128,333
$ 64,167
$ 192,500
$ 9,625
$ 54,542
15%
Lower Kusk. SchD. - Kipnuk
Kipnuk School Utility Master Plan
$ 52,467
$ 26,233
$ 78,700
$ 3,935
$ 22,298
15%
Arctic Village Council
Septage and Landfill Feasibility Study
$ 33,333
$ 16,667
$ 50,000
$ 2,500
$ 14,167
15%
Galena, City of
Water and Sewer Expansion
$ 600,000
$ 200,000
$ 800,000
$ 40,000
$ 160,000
20%
Old Harbor, City of
Sanitation Improvement Feasibility Study
$ 66,667
$ 33,333
$ 100,000
$ 5,000
$ 28,333
15%
Angoon, City of
Water Storage Tank, Septic Sludge Lagoon
$ 586,500
$ 195,500
$ 782,000
$ 39,100
$ 156,400
20%
Saint Mary's, City of
$ 101,333
$ 50,667
$ 152,000
$ 7,600
$ 43,067
15%
Kivalina, City of
Sewage Lagoon and Landfill Planning
Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Project,
Phase II
$ 221,250
$ 73,750
$ 295,000
$ 14,750
$ 59,000
20%
Kaltag, City of
Solid Waste Site
$ 172,500
$ 57,500
$ 230,000
$ 11,500
$ 46,000
20%
Metlakatla Indian Community
$ 1,031,250
$ 343,750
$ 1,375,000
$ 68,750
$ 275,000
20%
$ 195,000
$ 65,000
$ 260,000
$ 13,000
$ 52,000
20%
Togiak, City of
Sewer System Upgrades
Water Storage Tank Rehabilitation & Water
Treatment Plant Rehabilitation
Comprehensive Study of Sewer Treatment
Lagoon Upgrade
$ 33,333
$ 16,667
$ 50,000
$ 2,500
$ 14,167
15%
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Water and Sewer Services Feasibility Study
$ 63,333
$ 31,667
$ 95,000
$ 4,750
$ 26,917
15%
$ 42,952,508
$ 18,153,792
$ 61,106,300
$ 3,055,315
$ 15,098,477
17%
Bethel, City of
Kuspuk School District Crooked Creek
Lowell Point, Inc.
Lower Kusk. SchD. - Kasigluk
Unalakleet, City of
Total Projects
ISER
E-4
June 3, 2000
Existing and Potential Local Contributions to Village Safe Water Projects
Appendix F: Case Study Analyses of Potential 5 Percent
Local Cash Match Requirements
Because most projects are split into several phases, a community moving from honey buckets to
piped water and sewer needs to secure several grants over a decade or more. In order to see how
a cash match requirement might add up over the entire life of a project, we looked at four
communities in more detail. These communities all have FY 2000 VSW grants approved that
serve a clearly defined number of households, and all communities are in the process of moving
from honey buckets to piped systems.
Each case study begins with a general description of community facilities.11 Next is a list of
sanitation grants received by the community in the 1990s, including FY2000 amounts and
additional amounts needed to finish the project (if known). We estimate the cost per household
served of a 5 percent match for each phase of the project. We also compute the total match for
all project phases through FY2000 and FY2001, if applied for.
The four case studies suggest that a single year’s 5% local match requirement is often around
$2,000 per household served. The total required match on a complete set of projects carried out
over many years ranges between $2,500 and $5,000 per household served. If these amounts
were to be amortized and paid off over 20 years by a surcharge added to user fees, the user fees
would have to be increased by between 25% and 45%.
11
This information is taken from the Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, Alaska
Community Database
ISER
F-1
June 3, 2000
Existing and Potential Local Contributions to Village Safe Water Projects
Chevak
Construction began in 1995 to provide piped water and sewer to 170 homes and the school.
Completed project phases include a new landfill, a washeteria renovation, a new watering point,
water treatment plant, a 150,000-gallon water storage tank, new sewage lagoon, and a vacuum
sewer plant. Water and sewer mains and household connections are under construction.
Unserved residents currently haul water and use privies. Some homes have rain catchment
systems.
Table F- 1. Chevak Match Calculations
Fiscal
Year
2001
2000
1996
1995
1995
Description
Final Phase (requested)
phase 5
phase 3-4
part phase 3
phase 1-2
Entire Project
Authorization
$2,851,000
$3,400,000
$3,246,000
$2,853,000
$5,651,000
$18,001,000
Estimate of
5 percent
Households Match per
Match
Served
Household
$142,550
170
$839
$170,000
74
$2,297
$162,300
80
$2,029
$142,650
170
$839
$282,550
170
$1,662
$900,050
170
$5,294
Required increase in annual rates per household to cover match**
Current annual residential water & sewer rate
Required percentage rate increase to cover match
$462
$1,020
45%
source: ISER worksheet ‘local match community analysis.xls’
ISER
F-2
June 3, 2000
Existing and Potential Local Contributions to Village Safe Water Projects
Egegik
Egegik's water is supplied by two wells and is treated with fluoride. Four tanks are used, with a
total water storage capacity of 22,500 gallons. Approximately half of all homes are plumbed.
Eleven homes, the school, clinic and City offices, are connected to a piped water and sewer
system constructed in 1989. An additional 13 homes are connected only to the piped sewage
system. Other residents use septic tanks or haul honey buckets, and sewage pumping services are
available. Egegik uses between $5,000 and $10,000 per year from raw fish taxes to cover the
shortfall between user fees and the cost of water and sewer service. For the two fiscal years of
1997 and 1998, the City has suspended residential water/sewer tariff charges because of poor
commercial fishery harvests which presumably reduced the users’ ability to pay these fees.
Table F- 2. Egegik Match Calculations
Fiscal Year
Description
2000 Phase 2 Construction
1995 Phase 1 Construction
Entire Project
Estimate of
5 percent
Households Match per
Authorization
Match
Served
Household
$1,236,000
$61,800
24
$2,575
unknown
unknown
24 unknown
$1,236,000
$61,800
24
$2,575
Required increase in annual rates per household to cover match**
Current annual residential water & sewer rate
Required percentage rate increase to cover match
$225
$720
31%
**based on annualizing the "Entire Project" amount for 20 years at 6%
source: ISER worksheet ‘local match community analysis.xls’
ISER
F-3
June 3, 2000
Existing and Potential Local Contributions to Village Safe Water Projects
Noorvik
Water is pumped from the Kobuk River to the water treatment/utility building, and stored in a
tank. From there, a pressurized circulating system distributes water in utilidors. Noorvik has a
vacuum sewer system in which waste is carried by air instead of water. Vacuum pressure pumps
move the sewage to the 60,000 gallon collection and treatment plant. The system requires special
toilets and water valves that collect wastewater from the sinks, toilets and showers. Over 100
homes, the school and businesses are served. Funds have been requested to connect and plumb
the remaining 16 unserved homes on the south side of town and along River Road. Noorvik
charges $105 per household per month for water and sewer service. The City uses revenue from
cable TV and sales taxes to make up a revenue shortfall of more than $10,000.
Table F- 3. Noorvik Match Calculations
Fiscal
Year
2000
1999
1997
1994
1991
1990
1990
Description
Authorization
Utilidor extension and plumbing to
16 houses
$1,470,000
Utilidor extension to school, 14
neew homes; upgrade boiler, and
vacuum pumps
$1,560,000
Sewer 7 main lift station
connection;16 new homes
$475,000
Utilidor upgrades, building, 10 new
homes
$4,229,000
Water & Sewer 10 homes
$768,000
Repair frozen lines;treatment plant
upgrade
$747,000
Repair lines
$325,000
Entire Project
$9,574,000
5 percent
Match
Estimate of
Households
Served
Match per
Household
$73,500
16
$4,594
$78,000
101
$772
$23,750
16
$1,484
$211,450
$38,400
70
10
$3,021
$3,840
$37,350
$16,250
$478,700
50
50
117
$747
$325
$4,091
Required increase in annual rates per household to cover match**
Current annual residential water & sewer rate
Required percentage rate increase to cover match
$357
$1,260
28%
**based on annualizing the "Entire Project" amount for 20 years at 6%
source: ISER worksheet ‘local match community analysis.xls’
ISER
F-4
June 3, 2000
Existing and Potential Local Contributions to Village Safe Water Projects
Selawik
A new water and sewer system is under construction. A central treatment and washeteria facility
pumps water from the Selawik River, providing up to 8,000 gallons a day. A 3-mile distribution
line is available during the summer. A circulating water and vacuum sewer system was recently
built, and 53 homes in the “West II” area of town and new HUD housing have been plumbed and
connected. About 30 homes are yet to be served, and use honey buckets. Selawik charges $90
per household per month for water and sewer service and suffers a shortfall of about $20,000
between user fees and the cost of service.
Table F- 4. Selawik Match Calculations
Fiscal
Year
2000
1996
1992
1990
Description
Phase II and III, vacuum
water and sewer
phase II (part)
Master Plan, upgrade
serve 20 homes, plant
improvements
Entire Project
Authorization
5 percent
Match
Estimate of
Households
Served
Match per
Household
$3,500,000
$1,607,000
$1,356,000
$175,000
$80,350
$67,800
68
17
16
$2,574
$4,726
$4,238
$960,000
$7,423,000
$48,000
$371,150
20
121
$2,400
$3,067
Required increase in annual rates per household to cover match**
Current annual residential water & sewer rate
Required percentage rate increase to cover match
$267
$1,080
25%
source: ISER worksheet ‘local match community analysis.xls’
ISER
F-5
June 3, 2000