Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/31/2016 08:30 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmations: Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority | |
| HB373 | |
| SB124 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 373 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 319 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 249 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 124
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska
Commission on Aging; and providing for an effective
date."
Co-Chair Thompson relayed the next bill, SB 124. He did not
intend to move the bill from committee in the current
meeting. He read a list of available testifiers.
9:29:57 AM
SENATOR STOLTZ, SPONSOR, explained that his district was
part of the home of the fastest growing senior population
in the State of Alaska. He had introduced the bill by
request. It was a bill supported by numerous organizations
of seniors, individual seniors, and a wide array of others.
He wanted to reflect that it was not his bill but one that
belonged to the senior community and a broader group of
Alaskans.
Senator Stoltz relayed that the extension of the sunset
which would expire in July 2016 followed the
recommendations of the Budget and Audit Committee. Ms.
Curtis and her staff performed the audit and recommended an
8 year extension. There were other recommendations
including the commission improving its public notices of
subcommittees. He encouraged public participation. He
doubted that the commission did anything intentionally to
discourage public involvement. The other recommendation was
a gentle admonition, because of scarce resources, to
confine its' agenda to activities of senior Alaskans rather
than wandering into other policy areas. The Senate State
Affairs Committee and the Senate Finance Committee looked
at the fiscal impact. The Senate Finance Committee had a
lengthy discussion about the fiscal note, which he remarked
was a significant aspect. There were recommendations made
by the Senate Finance Committee for more significant cuts.
The committee mediated at the reduction of one person in
the current year and the potential reduction of 2 people in
subsequent years. They arrived at those conclusions working
with the administration.
Senator Stoltz felt the bill was fairly straight forward
and came down to whether the commission performed a
significant role. He thought the Alaska Commission on Aging
was the conduit for which federal funds were received. He
thought the amount was approximately $11 billion. He and
the audit division believed the commission performed an
important function. The Senate Finance committee looked at
the finances and remembered two words, "We're broke," that
were relevant to any discussion on any state issue being
dealt with. In spite of the state's fiscal situation he
thought the commission had a worthy role.
9:35:11 AM
Co-Chair Neuman mentioned the analysis on the fiscal note
it discussed how the Older Americans Act provided $12,851
in funding for seniors in FY 16. He wondered if the
commission decided how the money was spent. Senator Stoltz
responded that the commission, working with the
administration, was likely to decide how the money was to
be spent. He deferred to Ms. Daniello to provide a detailed
description. Some of the money was designated through
various components of the budget.
Co-Chair Neuman thought members were advocates of local
control. The health commission controlled federal funds for
programs that affected seniors. Senator Stoltz added that
it was one of the strongest citizen boards in the state. He
noted that Rachel Greenberg from his region was a great
member. He also mention Edna Debreeze, another active
member. He thought there was a deep well of knowledge and
capability on the citizens' board that he was not as
concerned about a diminution of admission the board was a
solid citizen's board.
Co-Chair Thompson thanked Senator Stoltz. He called Ms.
Daniello to the table to answer questions.
9:38:07 AM
DENISE DANIELLO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON
AGING, introduced herself.
Co-Chair Thompson was looking at the fiscal note eliminated
by the other body. He wondered about the elimination of one
full time position from the commission in FY 17 and two
full time positions beginning removed from the budget in FY
18. He asked about the effect it would have on the board's
ability to fulfill its statutory responsibility.
Ms. Daniello commented that it would have a dramatic impact
on the board's ability to do what it had been doing since
the commission's inception in 1981. Based on her
understanding of the Senate Finance Committee's fiscal note
it was an elimination of one position in FY 2017 and an
elimination of a second position in FY 18 for a total of
two staff positions resulting in a 50 percent reduction of
its staff. She remarked that the state had a growing senior
population. Currently, there were more than 120,400
seniors, 75,000 of whom were 65 years and older. It was not
just the growing senior population, but was also the growth
of the number of people of the oldest old. She continued
that each cohort of the senior population had different
needs and resources. The commission worked to do research
on prevailing trends and report data on a variety of
indicators. The commission convened stakeholder groups and
met with seniors around the state to ask for their input.
The commission developed the Alaska State Plan for Senior
Services, a 4 year comprehensive state plan, and was in
charge of its implementation.
Ms. Daniello also spoke of doing a significant amount of
education, advocacy, and planning efforts. The commission
provided guidance to other agencies of state government
that were also targeting how to address the growing senior
population within their planning efforts. She detailed the
loss of the administrative assistant who took care of the
day-to-day business transactions for the commission. The
position also helped provide board meeting packets and many
other administrative duties. She reviewed the duties of the
Planner 2 position that would be lost; the person worked
with the executive director to develop the state plan for
senior services satisfying the requirement under the Older
Americans Act to draw down the $11 million in funding. If
the fiscal note was approved the commission would continue
to do its best to satisfy its mandatory requirements. She
mentioned having done much more over the past years. She
noted hosting senior housing summits, the power of aging
symposium and working with partners to develop other
planning efforts. She reiterated that the loss of staff
would affect the commission greatly.
9:41:54 AM
Co-Chair Thompson asked if the commission would be able to
fulfill its statutory requirements. Ms. Daniello answered
that the commission had a year to prepare for the loss of
the Planner 2 position. She relayed that the commission was
very good at partnering. She assured the committee she
would do her pest to fulfill the mandatory statutory
requirements.
Co-Chair Neuman asked what positions were currently filled,
their duties, and their salaries.
Ms. Daniello relayed that currently there was an
administrative assistant position responsible for the day-
to-day business activities of the commission. She worked
with that person to develop financial projections. The
administrative assistant was also responsible for procuring
all travel, doing financial reports required for travel,
procuring office supplies, answering phones, handling mail,
and other miscellaneous duties.
Ms. Daniello identified the second position at the
commission, the Planner 1 position, funded by the Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority using the trust's authorized
receipts. She furthered that because the position was
funded by the trust the person was responsible for focusing
on the needs of senior trust beneficiaries including older
people with behavioral health needs, depression, mental
illness, and specifically Alzheimer's disease and related
dementias. Additionally, there was a growing population of
people with intellectual and developmental disabilities who
were aging as well as their caregivers.
Ms. Daniello moved on to describe the duties of the third
position in her office, the Planner 2 position. This
position was very important to the commission conducting
day-to-day research and assembling information to compile
graphs and charts used in PowerPoint presentations,
reports, and position papers. The position also provided
assistance to the executive director in developing needs
assessment activities and provided different types of needs
analysis used to collect information from the public that
informed advocacy and the state plan for senior services.
The position also supported the executive director in
coordinating the state planned advisory committee meetings
and provided support in developing the plan including the
goals, strategies, and performance measures. The position
also helped with organizing efforts for the commission's
newsletter and other responsibilities.
Ms. Daniello reviewed her own duties as the Executive
Director for the commission. She oversaw all of the work of
the commission including planning, advocacy, and education.
The position also prepared all of the PowerPoint
presentations, position papers, and formal correspondence
from the commission to legislators, the governor, public
members, state agencies, and non-profit organizations. The
Executive Director was responsible for making sure the
state plan was developed according to the requirements of
the U.S. Administration on Community Living and much more.
She relayed that she took direction from the commission,
particularly the commission chair.
9:46:34 AM
Co-Chair Neuman asked about the salary schedules.
Ms. Daniello deferred to Ms. Ziegenfuss to provide the
salary information.
JACQELLI ZIEGENFUSS, ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS MANAGER II,
SENIOR DISABILITIES SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES, asked if she should provide the salaries
or the total costs including benefits.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for both.
Ms. Ziegenfuss reviewed the salary schedule. The Executive
Director was a range 23, at a salary of $112,000 per year,
a benefits package of $56 thousand, for a total of
$169,441. The Administrative Assistant 2 position was a
range 14, at a salary of $58,296, a benefit package of
$37,835, for a total of $96,130. The Planner 2 position was
a range 19, at a salary of $68,801, a benefits package of
$41,623, for a total of $110,424. The Planner 1 position
was a range 17, at a salary of $73,809, a benefits package
of $43,429, for a total of $117,238.
Co-Chair Neuman asked that the information be provided in
writing. He thought the salaries were high and he would
like Ms. Curtis' input.
Representative Gara asked Ms. Daniello to elaborate on the
duties related to accessing $11 million in federal funding
that currently rested with one of the positions slated for
elimination.
Ms. Daniello responded that the funds were granted through
the Older Americans Act to provide services for seniors.
Also, in Alaska Title 3 funds were available providing
nutrition, transportation, and support services. It was one
of the largest senior grant programs the state had for
seniors. The program also include the National Family
Caregiver Support Program. The amount of federal funding
was over $5.8 million. Additionally, there was the
Nutrition Services Incentive Program which provided funding
used to purchase food for senior meals totaling $467,080.
There was also Title 7 funding for elder protection for the
Adult Protective Services and the Office of the Long-Term
Care Ombudsman totaling $103,193. There was federal funding
for Title 6 programs for tribal organizations in the amount
of $4.4 million. The funding went directly to the tribes
because of their direct relationship with the government
and the services mirrored services provided through Title 3
funding. The federal funding she spoke of totaled over $11
million.
9:51:40 AM
Representative Gara assumed that Department of Health and
Social Services had access to the funds. Ms. Daniello
answered that the money did not come through the commission
but rather through DHSS. The commission did the work in
partnership with the Division of Senior and Disabilities
Services to satisfy certain requirements ensuring the State
of Alaska received funding. She relayed that the DHSS was
the sole state agency on aging in Alaska. The
responsibilities were spelled out in the Older Americans
Act. The administration of federal and state funding for
senior programs went through the Division of Senior and
Disabilities Services and they managed the funds rather
than the commission.
Representative Gara asked about the volume of traffic
received through the commission's office. Ms. Daniello
responded that the amount of calls the commission received
was significant. She furthered that the office also
directed people to the Aging and Disability Center for
follow-up as well as talking with them. Often times the
commission received calls from care givers who were very
stressed out.
Representative Wilson wondered if the commission was
helping to bring federal funds to Alaska. She also wondered
why a portion of the funding was not being reinvested into
the commission. Ms. Daniello responded that there was a
small amount of money that came to the commission,
approximately $72 thousand. The rest of the funding for the
commission came from the General Fund with the exception of
the Mental Health Trust Authority Authorized Receipts
(MHTAAR) fund for the Planner 1 position.
Representative Wilson wanted to better understand the
criterial for determining how much money went to the
commission. She mentioned that she did not see $72 thousand
on the fiscal note.
9:55:00 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler mentioned hearing about the possibility
of obtaining additional waivers. He wondered how the
operations of the commission would change with the
potential cuts being proposed. Ms. Daniello relayed that
the commission had advocated to have waiver services
available to people with cognitive impairments who might
not meet the level of care requirements. The commission was
pleased with and had been actively involved in the
development and educational efforts having to do with
Medicaid 1915(i). The commission would be staying involved
with the state plan options.
Representative Gattis drew attention to the commission only
receiving a small portion of the $11 million in federal
funding. She had heard Ms. Daniello discuss the commission
working in tandem with the DHSS. She wondered why more
money did not flow directly to the commission. Ms. Daniello
explained that the Commission on Aging worked in
partnership with the DHSS to satisfy the responsibilities
of a state unit on aging. The responsibilities were
described in the Older Americans Act in Section 3056ad. The
Older Americans Act specified that the state unit on aging
was responsible for having fiduciary responsibilities
administering the federal and state funding for senior
programs and services, developing a state plan for senior
services, and serving as a visible advocate for elders. The
commission also provided significant education. She spoke
of a series of educational forums. She offered to send Co-
Chair Thompson opinions from seniors on Medicaid reform.
Co-Chair Thompson requested that she provide the
information to his staff.
9:59:53 AM
Representative Guttenberg asked if the planners on her
staff were also grant writers. He wondered if they were
writing grants that brought federal dollars to Alaska.
Ms. Daniello explained that the state plan for senior
services was the source of the draw down of federal money.
By having that plan the state remained in compliance with
the Older Americans Act. The 4 year state plan was approved
by the DHSS, the governor, and the U.S. Administration on
Community Living. There was an advisory council mostly
comprised of public members of senior age. The commission
wrote grant applications and employees worked as a team to
gather and compile information. She cited an example where
her staff submitted an application to the National
Alzheimer's Association for funding to include the
perceived cognitive impairment model in the behavioral risk
factor surveillance survey to gather information about
people with cognitive impairment. She mentioned the state
never before having the opportunity to receive certain
information from Alaskans directly. She relayed that the
commission's plan for the following year was to work with a
couple of funders to include a module that would look at
the needs of family care givers.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether the ability to
maintain federal funding was in jeopardy with the loss of
two positions being cut. Ms. Daniello was uncertain. She
relayed that the commission would do its best to develop a
4 year state plan and to be an active and physical activist
for elders.
Co-Chair Thompson invited Ms. Curtis to the table.
10:03:33 AM
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, reported that the division did a sunset
review of the Commission on aging. They looked at whether
the commission should be extended and whether they were
serving the public's interest. Overall, the audit concluded
that the Alaska Commission on Aging (commission) was
serving the public's interest by helping older Alaskans
lead dignified, independent, and useful lives through
advocacy, outreach, and education. Furthermore, the
commission served as the advisory council to advise on
matters on the development, administration, and operations
related to the state plan. The commission met the federal
requirement that each state establish an advisory council
to advise the state on aging matters. The division
recommend the maximum extension in statute of 8 years to
June 30, 2024.
Ms. Curtis relayed that there were two recommendations
resulting from the audit. The first was for the executive
director to implement and follow public notice
requirements. There had been some meetings that were not
public noticed as required. The second recommendation was
to the chair person to review and approve the legislation
watch list prior to distribution. The commission
periodically held teleconferences to gather public input
and discuss legislation affecting seniors. She explained
that to facilitate the feedback the commission published
watch lists of bills relevant to senior matters. When the
auditors looked at the watch lists they found legislation
that was not applicable to their duties. The auditors
recommended that in order to efficiently use the
commission's resources that they limit the watch lists to
only bills affecting seniors.
10:05:19 AM
Representative Wilson asked if a consideration of the
number of staff was part of the audit process. Ms. Curtis
was asked by the Senate Finance Committee her opinion about
whether the commission's staff could do its job and meet
responsibilities without jeopardizing federal funding with
the loss of a position. She answered that the auditors did
not explicitly enter into a sunset review looking at
whether the level of positions was adequate or whether they
were compensated appropriately. There were upwards of 200
boards and commissions. The Commission on Aging was given a
higher level of scrutiny because it was up for sunset in
the current year. She suggested that it could be time for a
legislative audit of all boards and commissions. She
reported that the Senate Finance Committee seemed to be
interested in her suggestion. A similar audit was conducted
in 1992. At the time there was a governor's council on
boards and commissions that did a holistic review and
suggested merging some boards and providing different
compensation. She was aware there was interest and thought
it might be a good time for such an audit. However, what
she stated specifically related to the Commission on Aging
was that the auditors did not believe that a loss of a
position would impact its ability to produce a state plan,
key to maintaining federal funding.
Co-Chair Thompson clarified that in the fiscal note it
indicated that in 2018 a second position would be lost. He
wondered if that loss would have any affect. Ms. Curtis
answered that undeniably when positions were cut services
were cut as well. In talking with the staff that conducted
the audit they believed there would be a reduction in
services provided. It would come down to prioritization of
services. She thought the state plan would be a top
priority. She was unsure whether the quality of the plan
would be compromised. She thought the level of work with
less workforce would be much more difficult. It was hard to
say if the level of work would lead to obtaining federal
funding. The judgement would have to be made in 2 years.
The auditors thought the commission could absorb a cut but
would likely result in reduced services.
Representative Wilson asked about the amount of federal
funding the commission received versus the goals of the
commission. She wondered if the auditors ever weighed in on
whether the DHSS should provide more funding. Ms. Curtis
replied that the auditors did not scrutinize the
commission's funding mechanisms. She thought that obtaining
additional federal funding would depend on its activities
in the current year. The audit and background material laid
out information about the federal program and the
commission's role in coordination with the department. It
was a joint process but the programs themselves were
administered by the Division of Senior and Disabilities
Services. They had the federal and state programs that
served seniors. The commission was the planning entity. The
appropriate funding would be left up to the department.
10:09:42 AM
Representative Pruitt asked about the second recommendation
from the auditors. He understood the concern was that the
commission would not want the issue to become politicized.
He asked if there had been follow-up in order to ensure the
commission was staying within the scope of senior services
when tracking legislation. Ms. Curtis answered that once
the audit was released there was no mechanism for the
auditors to go back in. There was no type of review or
evidence to support any changes.
Representative Pruitt asked if Ms. Curtis was satisfied
with the responses from the commission. Ms. Curtis relayed
that the commission as well as the department were
receptive and responsive to the audit. She was satisfied
with the audit.
Representative Guttenberg referred to the letter from the
commission in response to the audit recommendations. The
commission concurred with the audit findings and was
addressing them. He was aware the commission was
responsible for developing a state plan, but wondered who
was responsible for implementing it. Ms. Curtis responded
that much of the plan was implemented by the department.
However, the commission was responsible for outreach and
education which was part of the plan.
Representative Guttenberg asked if the commission staff
oversaw the department to make sure it complied with the
plan. Ms. Curtis responded that one of the functions of the
commission was to receive feedback from the people served.
She thought the commission was well aware of the degree to
which services were provided. She thought it was a more
indirect absorption of information rather that the
commission overseeing as a hierarchical type of
relationship within the department.
Representative Guttenberg was trying to better understand
the relationship between the commission and the department
and whether it was scrutinized as part of the audit. Ms.
Curtis reported conducting a survey of stakeholders to
understand the degree to which the commission was
successful. The survey responses and questions were in the
back of the state plan. In general, the feedback on the
commission was very positive. The plan was redone every 4
years. The degree to which the plan was successful would be
reevaluated when developing the next goals. She thought the
executive director of the Commission on Aging would be a
better person to answer his question. In response to the
question about the recommendations provided by the
auditors, every time the auditors did a sunset review they
familiarized themselves with the previous report
recommendations. In the introduction paragraph to the
findings and recommendations the auditors always addressed
the prior sunset audit recommendations. In the sunsets
audits there was a mechanism to come back in a certain
amount of time.
10:15:25 AM
Representative Guttenberg understood requesting feedback
and getting feedback. As far as implementing the plan and
its success, he wondered if she had looked at any feedback
from the federal government on how the state's
implementation.
Ms. Curtis responded that the auditors did not contact the
federal oversight agency to inquire about their
satisfaction.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
10:16:44 AM
MARIE DARLIN, AARP, JUNEAU, indicated that AARP frequently
worked with the Commission on Aging. The organization
represented the aging population and encouraged younger
people to join also because they would become part of that
population in the future. She was also a member of the
commission for several years. She told of the commission's
previous audit which she opined had good results. The
recommendations that were made at the time were all
addressed by the commission. She was also the chairman of
the legislative committee for the Commission on Aging and
affirmed that as advocates they watched legislation. The
commission had a watch list containing all of the
legislation introduced relating to the aging population in
whatever way. There might have been a couple of pieces of
legislation on the list that could not be tied to the topic
of the aging. The commission had taken measures to rectify
the list. The watch list was signed off by both the
chairman of the commission and herself. She believed the
concerns resulting from the audit had been addressed. In
discussing a reduction in staff, she commented that once
the 4 year plan was put together, then it was up to the
commission to look at the implementation of the plan and be
able to report and keep track of it. She reported that the
commission consisted of 11 members. She emphasized that the
commission made very sure that it represented the entire
State of Alaska from the smaller communities to the urban
communities. When it came to looking at legislation and
other issues the commission made sure to have the input
from different areas of the state about where it should
place its energies and focus. The commission hopefully
represented all of the issues and concerns from throughout
the state.
10:22:02 AM
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Thompson indicated he would be setting SB 124
aside.
SB 124 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Vice-Chair Saddler commended the board for its good work
and thanked the bill sponsor.
Co-Chair Thompson indicated that the balance of the agenda
would be rescheduled for another time.