Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/22/2001 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 162-ABSENCES UNDER LONGEVITY BONUS PROGRAM Number 2763 CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 162, "An Act relating to absences from the state under the longevity bonus program." Representatives Dyson and Guess came forward to testify as sponsors of HB 162. REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, explained that HB 162 is being sponsored by the House Education and Social Services Standing Committee. House Bill 162 removes an inadvertent restriction that makes it difficult for senior citizens to receive their longevity bonuses while doing such things as going Outside to visit family, he said. The bill extends the time they can be Outside from 30 days to 60 days. In addition, it extends the allowable time for those who take an unpaid "sabbatical" for medical treatment or education and now find themselves having to pay for a flight home to Alaska every 90 days so as not to lose their eligibility for the bonus. Number 2650 REPRESENTATIVE GRETCHEN GUESS, Alaska State Legislature, explained that the purpose for the first change, extending the time a person can be gone from 30 to 60 days, is to make it possible for lower-income seniors to drive Outside to visit family. The second change extends the allowable sabbatical from 90 days to five years. She explained that a senior who was out of state more than 60 days would not receive a monthly bonus, but would remain eligible for the program when he or she returned to Alaska. Currently, a person has to return after 90 days and receive the bonus for one month before leaving again. Also, seniors who are out of state for allowable reasons (such as for medical treatment) now must file burdensome paperwork to remain Outside for more than 90 days without losing their eligibility. She said that extending the sabbatical will save the state money in bonuses now paid those who return and file for a month's bonus just to maintain their eligibility, and also by cutting down on eligibility paperwork. Number 2550 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES declared a conflict of interest, as she and her husband receive the longevity bonus. Beyond that, she said, the longevity bonus is a "very touchy" subject to her. Some of the general public, particularly those who are pioneers of Alaska who will never receive the bonus [because the program is being phased out], are unhappy about some other people getting it. In 1992, 40 percent of the people drawing longevity bonuses had not been in the state more than three years. She said that was a result of a court ruling that the state could only require a year's residency before people qualified. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recalled that one option considered at that time was to drop the program altogether; another was to phase it out and grandfather those who already had qualified. The latter was done, and the amount the state spends goes down every year because of the decrease in the number of people drawing the bonus. Another idea discussed at that time was to make the bonus means-tested, so that any individual with income over $60,000 (or $80,000 for a couple) would not be entitled to the longevity bonus. That brought "huge hue and cry" from those in the program because it had not been designed as a welfare program. They also objected to providing financial information that they felt was private. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thinks HB 162 will attract "all sort of amendments" and cautioned that a lot of people (including some in the legislature) would like to have the longevity bonus program go away. So she was not enthusiastic about going forward with HB 162. "However, it does make a lot of sense," she acknowledged. She concurred that the 30-day allowable absence is very limiting to seniors who are driving out of state, but said extending the unpaid sabbatical from 90 days to five years struck her as excessive. Number 2293 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he thought Representative James had very accurately encapsulated the history of the longevity bonus, which was established by the legislature to reward the people who had built Alaska and to help "keep our elders here amongst us" rather than watching them leave to live in cheaper places. He called it unfortunate that the court ruled that under federal law, the state could not discriminate against newcomers. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON directed attention to the fiscal note, explaining that extending the unpaid sabbatical to five years actually saves money as well as helping to clarify the records. Number 2153 REPRESENTATIVE FATE declared that he, too, had a conflict of interest. Number 2131 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he thought HB 162 was a very good idea. He asked if it had letters of support from any organizations. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said sponsors are in the process of gathering letters of support. She added that she thought there also is some opposition. Number 2094 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he supported HB 162 without equivocation. Number 2062 ALLISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration, came forward to speak to the fiscal note. She explained that the effects of the two aspects of HB 162 had been broken out separately. The cost of Section 1, which extends the allowable absence during which a person could continue to receive a longevity bonus check from 30 to 60 days, was estimated at $288,400 based on last year's figures. Yet the fiscal note is a negative one because Section 2, lengthening the sabbatical, would save money. In attempting to address that in the fiscal note, the Department of Administration estimated that if 10 percent of current recipients were Outside for one month longer than they are currently allowed, and they were not receiving a check for that month, the state would save up to $435,100 a year. She emphasized that those on sabbatical are not disqualified from the program, but simply suspended during their absence from the state. CHAIR COGHILL invited further testimony. There was none. Number 1892 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HB 162 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HOUSE BILL NO. 162, "An Act relating to absences from the state under the longevity bonus program" was moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. [HB 162 MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|