Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/30/2003 03:15 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 124(efd fld)
An Act relating to grants for alcoholism and drug abuse
programs.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED to ADOPT SB 124(efd fld), #23-
GS111\A.A as the working document before the Committee.
Representative Croft pointed out that the effective date had
failed but noted that he did not see an effective date. Co-
Chair Williams interjected that is how it is before the
Committee. It does not have an effective date.
Representative Joule asked if the A.A version consisted of
one page only. Co-Chair Williams clarified that it did.
Co-Chair Harris asked if there had an effective date when it
passed the Senate. Co-Chair Williams reiterated that this
was the bill before the Committee.
JOEL GILBERTSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL
SERVICES, clarified that when the bill was introduced as SB
124, it did have an effective date of July 1, 2003. The
cost savings associated with that version are included in
the Governor's budget. It was passed out of the Senate
without the effective date.
Co-Chair Harris interjected that when the effective date
fails, then that language should be removed from the title
and body of the bill.
Representative Joule asked about the difference between the
House HES version and the Senate version. Co-Chair Williams
explained that the House HES dropped it from 25% the first
year to 17.5% until July 1, 2004. The Senate version is the
Governor's version minus the effective date. That would
amount to a 25% savings as of July 1, 2003.
Representative Joule clarified that the House HES version
would transition the process to 2004. The Senate version
removes it all on July 1, 2003. Representative Joule
OBJECTED to adopting the Senate version of the bill.
Representative Croft noted that he also supported the House
HES version. The House version keeps the effective date and
changes the percentage, which would be a better procedure.
Co-Chair Williams commented that if the Committee could get
the Senate version before them, then they could entertain an
amendment to reinstate the July 1, 2002 effective date, from
the Governor's original bill. Representative Joule asked if
it could be amended to indicate that transition. Co-Chair
Williams replied he would not support the amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to work from the
Senate version.
IN FAVOR: Foster, Hawker, Meyer, Stoltze, Whitaker,
Chenault, Harris, Williams
OPPOSED: Joule, Moses, Croft
The MOTION PASSED (8-3).
Commissioner Gilbertson commented that the general fund
savings resulting from the Governor's bill would be in the
amount of $1.6 million dollars. The bill increases local
investments and involvement in the alcohol treatment grants
provided to the communities. Local investment indicates the
success of the programs. The current 10% match is low. He
stressed that this would be a sensible effort to increase
local effort and to keep grants on the street. He concluded
that at a time when State government does not have the
necessary resources to continue to fully fund all these
programs, it is important that the local investment and
commitment come forward.
Representative Croft noted that the fiscal notes indicate
approximately $1.6 million dollars savings. He inquired if
it was assumed that the communities would step up the same
level of effort on alcohol services.
KAREN PEARSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, clarified that the
hope is that the communities will generate that additional
revenue and that the services can remain the same.
Representative Croft questioned the total State effort spent
on alcohol services statewide.
Ms. Pearson responded that certain programs would be held
harmless at the same rate. There is not an across the board
difference. Representative Croft emphasized that it is
being assumed that the municipalities would make up the $1.6
million dollars. Ms. Pearson replied that was correct.
Representative Joule pointed out that the Legislature this
year is:
· Proposing to cut revenue sharing to municipalities
by 25%;
· Proposing to cut debt reimbursement; and
· Proposing more reliability on faith based programs.
He stressed that all these reductions are coming from the
same pot. He warned about the stress and burden these
actions would place upon the local communities.
Commissioner Gilbertson advised that the way in which the
bill is structured, most of the smaller communities are
exempt. He emphasized that it was not indented to "shirt
the shift costs to the local government" but rather to keep
the grants on the streets.
Representative Joule noted that last year, the State
increased the alcohol tax. He asked how much of that was
spent on drug and alcohol related problems. Commissioner
Gilbertson replied that the State spent roughly $7 million
dollars of the alcohol tax package toward new programs
and/or the infrastructure. He added that 50% of the total
alcohol money was invested in programs.
Representative Joule recommended that the money raised from
that tax should be placed back into programs related to that
concern. Commissioner Gilbertson stated that the total
investment in alcohol treatment programs is higher than it
was in FY03 & FY04. The Administration is investing
additional resources from the alcohol tax. He reminded
members that there is a general fund short fall at this time
and that the Department of Health & Social Services took
more than $50 million dollars in general fund reductions.
Representative Hawker referred to the fiscal note, pointing
out the exclusion of the grantees that receive less than $30
thousand dollars. He asked the mechanism used to determine
that amount.
Karen Pearson explained that those tend to be the smaller
program grant to schools and communities. There were five
of those grants. The community based suicide prevention
grants were all excluded from that, as they have no way to
generate revenue. The grants tend to fall within category
types. Within the treatment programs, the ones that are
geared for women and youth are being held harmless because
of the vulnerability of those populations.
Representative Hawker understood that some of the categories
would fall under the provision listed on Page 7. Ms.
Pearson replied that was correct and that the Department
retains the ability to waive anytime the needed 10%.
Representative Hawker noted that the Department intends to
make use of that provision in certain cases. Commissioner
Gilbertson agreed that was correct.
Representative Croft observed that with the communities
affected by the fiscal note, the State would be spending
about $1 million dollars. To reduce that 90% to 75% would
be going from $1 million dollars when a reduction from that
percentage would be leaving a change from a $1 million
dollar community effort to $2.5 million dollars. He
stressed that would be a "huge increase" for those
communities. Representative Croft inquired if there was
information available that the communities would be able
accommodates that.
Commissioner Gilbertson acknowledged that the legislation
will impact communities. He added that there is a system of
programs to award grants. There are more entities looking
for grants than there are grants. He added that the
programs would still be offered. He stressed that the
general fund savings would help the Department address the
fiscal concerns. A number of grants were completely
eliminated. The Department decided that instead of taking
$1.6 million dollars of grants off the table, it changed it
to having more local investment. There will be better
programs, better applications and more community
involvement. The overall savings may be larger in the long
run. Programs will be more sustainable with less
volatility. He concluded that the Department had to make a
decision on how to achieve the necessary general fund
savings while maximizing the number of services.
Representative Croft asked if the fiscal note could be more
accurate if it assumed something less than the
municipalities being left with the entire obligation.
TAPE HFC 03 - 72, Side B
Commissioner Gilbertson clarified that it was assumed that
some of the grants would be awarded and that the Department
would continue to administer the grants. He added that many
of the grants would continue to be "out on the street".
Representative Croft understood those funds would be the
municipal match portion of it. Commissioner Gilbertson
replied that it could be an in-kind contribution.
In response to a comment by Representative Croft,
Commissioner Gilbertson reiterated that the State's overall
alcohol effort had increased.
Representative Croft asked if the line had been decreased in
a substantial way, what would that level be. Commissioner
Gilbertson responded that in the Governor's budget proposal,
there is a $3.5 million dollar additional general fund
investment into alcohol treatment programs that target
primarily rural juveniles who currently do not have access
to treatment. Additionally, other funds have been
designated for the preservation of families. Money in the
Governor's budget is designated for those two populations.
Representative Croft questioned if the efforts to add
increases to offset decreases had survived the majority
process. Commissioner Gilbertson responded that the budget
was funded from the Senate side and the moved to the House
side.
ANN HOPPER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PROGRAM
DIRECTOR, FAMILY FOCUS PROGRAM, FAIRBANKS, testified in
opposition to the bill. She voiced serious concerns with
the increase in match for these programs. These areas are
already "maxed to the brim" in terms of what they are able
to afford and the quality of service that they provide.
The 80% of the youth served at the community shelter that
are under the age of 18 have alcohol related incidences in
their lives. Ms. Hopper stressed that reducing or
threatening current services will catch up with the State
down the road. She encouraged that the State build upon the
programs that are currently available. Taking away
treatment removes the hope. If the hope is removed, she
asked where would people turn. She noted that some
communities have no other resources and maintained that
since alcoholism is a disease, it should be considered in a
medical model that addiction problems impact other portions
of the budget. Ms. Hopper urged reconsideration of this
issue, keeping it at the current 10% rate.
ANNETTE FRYBERGER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, FAIRBANKS NATIVE ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS, noted
that the Fairbanks Native Association provides a continuum
of care through a residential treatment center for many
alcohol related problems. She noted that some programs will
not be immediately affected by the increased match. She
noted her support for the House Version of the bill, which
implemented the increase in a gradual, stepwise fashion.
She noted that programs might otherwise not be able to
achieve their match. She requested time to implement the
change.
SENATOR TIM KELLY, SUBSTANCE ABUSE ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU,
observed that traditionally the Senate has been against this
type of funding for alcohol programs. He requested that the
Committee revisit the decision to adopt the Senate version
of the bill; he encouraged that the House HESS version would
implement the changes over time. He speculated that a
decrement of $1.6 million would be destructive to the State
of Alaska.
Co-Chair Williams MOVED Amendment #1, which would add a new
section: "Section 2. This Act takes effect July 1, 2003".
Representative Stoltze MOVED a conforming title amendment,
which adds the language "provide for an effective date".
There being NO OBJECTION, the amendment as changed was
adopted.
Representative Foster MOVED HCS CS SB 124 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Joule OBJECTED.
Representative Joule stated that the House HESS version of
the proposed legislation was more worthwhile in that it
would allow organizations to have adequate time to make the
needed adjustments.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hawker, Meyer, Moses, Stoltze, Chenault,
Foster, Williams, Harris
OPPOSED: Joule, Whitaker, Croft
The MOTION PASSED (8-3).
HCS CS SB 124 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"individual" recommendations and with fiscal notes #1, #2,
#3, & #4 by the Department of Health & Social Services.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|