04/16/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB79 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 16, 2007
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ralph Samuels
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 79
"An Act relating to reapplications for the Alaska longevity
bonus program; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 79(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 164
"An Act relating to reporting of vessel location by certain
commercial passenger vessels operating in the marine waters of
the state, to access to vessels by licensed marine engineers for
purposes of monitoring compliance with state and federal
requirements, and to the obligations of those engineers while
aboard the vessels; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 04/18/07
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 79
SHORT TITLE: LONGEVITY BONUS REAPPLICATIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) LYNN, THOMAS, GUTTENBERG, KERTTULA
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, FIN
02/08/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/08/07 (H) Moved CSHB 79(STA) Out of Committee
02/08/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/12/07 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 3DP 1NR 3AM
02/12/07 (H) DP: ROSES, GRUENBERG, LYNN
02/12/07 (H) NR: JOHANSEN
02/12/07 (H) AM: JOHNSON, COGHILL, DOLL
02/12/07 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED AFTER STA
04/16/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE SICA, Staff
to Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 79 on
behalf of Representative Lynn, one of the bill's joint prime
sponsors.
RALPH C. HUNT
Igloo No. 6
Pioneers of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 79.
MARIE DARLIN, Coordinator
AARP Capital City Task Force
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 79.
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 79.
TAMARA COOK, Director
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 79.
JANET CLARKE, Assistant Commissioner
Central Office
Finance and Management Services
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 79.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:10:17 PM. Representatives Coghill, Lynn,
Holmes, and Ramras were present at the call to order.
Representatives Gruenberg and Dahlstrom arrived as the meeting
was in progress. Representative Samuels was excused.
HB 79 - LONGEVITY BONUS REAPPLICATIONS
1:10:34 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 79, "An Act relating to reapplications for the
Alaska longevity bonus program; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was CSHB 79(STA).]
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, speaking as a joint prime sponsor, assured
the committee that HB 79 is not intended to restore funding for
the longevity bonus program, but is instead intended to make
reapplication to the longevity bonus program possible for
previously qualified longevity bonus recipients if the program
is ever again funded. He opined that [the legislature] should
help Alaska's seniors to live out their days in a decent and
dignified manner by funding both the Alaska longevity bonus
program and the [Alaska senior benefits payment program], and
then requiring seniors to choose which of those two programs to
apply for.
1:13:47 PM
MIKE SICA, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, said on behalf of Representative Lynn, joint prime
sponsor, that once the [funding for the] longevity bonus program
was eliminated four years ago, eligible seniors simply stopped
filing their required monthly applications, thereby
unintentionally violating the program's "continuous eligibility"
procedures. Should the Alaska longevity bonus program be funded
again in the future, passage of HB 79 or similar legislation is
necessary so that otherwise eligible applicants won't be
disqualified.
MR. SICA relayed that subsection (a)(1)-(3) allows a person to
file a reapplication to the longevity bonus program if he/she
was qualified to receive a monthly longevity bonus payment
before 1/1/97, if he/she was eligible for a longevity bonus for
6/03, and if he/she is a resident of Alaska. He mentioned that
there is a proposed amendment that would alter the language in
paragraph (3) to specifically reference the statute that defines
state residency. Subsection (b) requires that the reapplication
be filed before 1/1/08, and directs the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) to prepare reapplication forms and
require evidence of eligibility. Subsection (c) specifies that
the amount of a person's monthly longevity bonus shall be the
same amount the person was eligible to receive before the
funding was eliminated in 2003. Section 2 of the bill provides
for an effective date of 7/1/07.
MR. SICA concluded by saying that HB 79 is intended to ensure
that formerly eligible recipients can qualify for future
longevity bonus payments through reapplication should the
program ever be funded again.
1:18:18 PM
RALPH C. HUNT, Igloo No. 6, Pioneers of Alaska, said that [the
longevity bonus program] was very important to Alaska's
pioneers, and that quite a few of them had to leave Alaska once
the program's funding was eliminated. If the goal is to take
care of Alaska's pioneers, he opined, it is important to
reestablish the program, which will phase out automatically in a
few years anyway. In response to a question, he relayed that
he's lived in Alaska for 57 years, and then recounted some of
his employment and residence history.
1:21:04 PM
MARIE DARLIN, Coordinator, AARP Capital City Task Force, said
that the AARP has written letters in support of "this" with the
idea that many AARP members in Alaska would still be affected by
the longevity bonus program. She said that with the
understanding that HB 79 simply addresses the reapplication
process, the AARP supports the legislation. She also said she
concurs with Mr. Hunt's comments, and posited that
reestablishing the longevity bonus program will assist seniors
financially so that they won't have to leave the state, thus
allowing them to continue contributing to the community. In
response to questions, she pointed out that eligibility for the
longevity bonus program was not based on income, and that if a
person had to choose between the Alaska longevity bonus program
and the [Alaska senior benefits payment program], he /she would
first have to consider his/her individual financial situation
before making that choice.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he supports the reapplication
process and agrees with the original intent of the longevity
bonus program.
MS. DARLIN, in response to comments, acknowledged that the
longevity bonus program was designed to phase out eventually
with the death of applicants.
1:28:12 PM
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor, Human Services Section, Civil Division
(Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), relayed that she represents
the DHSS, and, in response to a question, said that although the
Alaska Superior Court has determined that the provision phasing
out the longevity bonus program is constitutional because of the
way the provision is framed, there could be an equal protection
challenge raised if the program is funded again. However, since
the statutes pertaining to the longevity bonus program were
never repealed, the "reliance" position taken by the Alaska
Superior Court would be similar to the position the DOL would
take should the funding be reinstituted and the reapplication
legislation be adopted and then challenged.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised, however, that a new process for
establishing eligibility would have to be created, thus giving
the appearance that it is a new program regardless that it would
apply to the same group of applicants.
1:33:04 PM
TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), said she is in substantial
agreement with Ms. Kraly that while "this" is susceptible to an
equal protection challenge, there are reasonably good theories
of defense that can be asserted, and thus the program, should it
be funded again, could be defended. She surmised that [any
challenge] would revolve around the fact that it has been
approximately four years since the original recipients were
receiving their longevity bonus and relying on it, and so the
argument might be made that this four-year gap has destroyed
former recipients' "reliance" interest.
MS. COOK, in response to questions, offered her understanding
that under HB 79, only those applicants who were previously
receiving longevity bonus payments would qualify to reapply;
that the legislature couldn't be forced to fund the program,
either for future payments or for retroactive payments, because
the legislature's power to appropriate is paramount in
situations involving a non-needs based benefit program; and that
an argument could possibly be raised that distinguishing between
prior-year recipients and current or future elders is no longer
justified, but this argument would depend on the notion that the
original recipients no longer rely on the longevity bonus
payments because they haven't received those payments for such a
long period of time.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that HB 79 only
inserts language into Alaska's uncodified law and not into
statute. He asked Ms. Cook how she feels about either putting
the proposed language into statute along with a provision to
repeal it, or at least requiring the revisor of statutes to
include [information about the passage of HB 79] in a note under
the relevant statute.
MS. COOK said that "setting it out" as a note makes more sense
than codifying the language and then repealing it. She pointed
that if all "temporary law" statutes were to be codified, "we
literally burn up those section [numbers] in the statute books
and then we start running out of space for new laws." She
surmised that the revisor of statutes would probably "set it
out" as a note anyway.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether either adopting a
letter of intent or setting out specific instruction to the
revisor would help.
MS. COOK said that although the legislature could do either, she
could also simply let the revisor know that "that's" the will of
the legislature. In response to a question, Ms. Cook said she
would ask the revisor of statutes what her preference would be,
but surmised that the revisor won't have any problem setting it
out as a note after simply being advised that doing so is the
will of the legislature.
MR. SICA then recounted how CSHB 79(STA) came to be.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after noting that no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 79.
1:42:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled
25-LS0359\K.1, Cook, 4/16/07, which read:
Page 1, line 14, through page 2, line 1:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) is a resident under AS 01.10.055 on the
day the reapplication form is signed and dated by the
applicant."
CHAIR RAMRAS objected for the purpose of discussion.
MS. COOK explained that Amendment 1 would add language used by
the Senate in similar legislation in place of HB 79's existing
proposed paragraph (3). The language being proposed by
Amendment 1 comes at the request of the administration and is
meant to ensure that residency is determined on the date the
reapplication form is signed and dated by the applicant, and to
ensure that the definition of resident that exists in Title 1 is
used.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the term "resident" would
be defined under AS 01.010.055 anyway.
MS. COOK agreed, and, in response to comments and questions,
pointed out that although Amendment 1 will loosen up the
residency requirements considerably, only those who were
previously receiving longevity bonus payments would qualify for
reapplication.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that under Amendment 1,
someone who had previously been receiving longevity bonus
payments but had since left the state could simply move back to
Alaska and qualify for reapplication.
MS. COOK concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether adoption of
Amendment 1 would result in additional costs to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES surmised that it wouldn't result in any
additional costs because the bill stipulates that only those who
were previously receiving payments would be eligible for
reapplication and thus there wouldn't be any new applicants.
She posited that Amendment 1 could benefit those recipients who
were forced to leave the state for financial reasons once the
program stopped being funded.
MS. COOK, in response to comments, offered her understanding
that the language in paragraph (c) stipulates that a person must
still meet the original program's requirements, one of which is
outlined in AS 47.45.030(c), which says that a recipient who has
been absent from the state for a continuous period that exceeds
three years is permanently disqualified from receiving payments.
So, potentially, under Amendment 1, a person could have left the
state and still qualify for reapplication as long as he/she was
not gone from the state for longer than three years.
CHAIR RAMRAS removed his objection to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected, and said he would still like
to find out how many additional people might qualify under
[Amendment 1].
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested that the House Finance Committee could
more appropriately address that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred but said he still wants an
answer to his question.
1:51:38 PM
JANET CLARKE, Assistant Commissioner, Central Office, Finance
and Management Services, Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), relayed that although she would not be able to
specifically answer that question this afternoon, there are
assumptions built into the DHSS's fiscal notes. Referring to
the fiscal note pertaining to longevity bonus grants, she
pointed out that on page 2, there is an assumption that 5
percent - or approximately 631 individuals - of those who
formerly received longevity bonus payments either will not meet
residency criteria or will not apply. This assumption is based
on cursory information related to the population, and thus the
real number could be higher or lower.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that adoption of
Amendment 1 could affect "up to a little over 600" individuals.
MS. CLARKE said that is the department's best estimate on this
population at this time, though the department will continue
looking at these figures as the bill moves through the process.
In response to a question, she explained that any additional
cost to the program will vary depending on the circumstances
each individual found himself/herself in, in 1997, because some
recipients were getting $100 per month and some were getting
more, up to [$250] per month.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered a calculation of 600 people
receiving $100 a month for a total of $720,000 per year.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, in conclusion, characterized HB 79 as a
good bill.
1:55:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSHB 79(STA), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
79(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
[Members spoke briefly regarding how the committee would be
proceeding during the committee's next meeting.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|