Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/31/1995 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
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 31, 1995
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Ed Willis
Representative Caren Robinson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HB 74:"An Act relating to the assault of children by
adults."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 4:"An Act relating to absences from the state
for purposes of determining residency under
the permanent fund dividend program; and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HJR 3:Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the State of Alaska prohibiting the imposition
of state personal income taxation, state ad
valorem taxation on real property, or state
retail sales taxation without the approval of
the voters of the state.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 70:"An Act relating to treatment of permanent
fund dividends for purposes of determining
eligibility for certain benefits; and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 81"An Act relating to the preservation of public
facilities and to appropriations for annual
maintenance and repair, periodic renewal and
replacement, and construction of public
facilities."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsored HB 74
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsored HB 4
TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Aide
to Representative Terry Martin
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 502
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information on HJR 3
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant
to Representative Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed information relating to HB 70
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 119691
Juneau, AK 99802-0601
Telephone: 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information HB 70
CURTIS LOMAS, Welfare Reform Coordinator
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 11064
350 Main St., Room 317
Juneau, AK 99811-0640
Telephone: 465-3347
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information on AFDC Program
JON SHERWOOD, Program Coordinator
Office of the Commissioner
Division of Medical Assistance
Department of Health and Social Service
Juneau, AK 99802-0601
Telephone: 465-3355
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information on PFD
JOHN STEINMANN, Architect
Division of Finance and Facilities
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-2781
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information on HB 81
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 4
SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND ELIGIBILITY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 21 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/24/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/24/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
BILL: HB 74
SHORT TITLE: ASSAULT BY ADULTS ON CHILDREN
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE, Green, Toohey, Kubina,
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 40 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 40 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 40 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/20/95 106 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
01/20/95 106 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
01/23/95 119 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KUBINA
01/25/95 136 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B. DAVIS, ROKEBERG
01/31/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 3
SHORT TITLE: VOTER APPROVAL FOR NEW TAXES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN, Rokeberg, Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 16 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 16 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/19/95 86 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
01/24/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/24/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
BILL: HB 70
SHORT TITLE: END PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND HOLD HARMLESS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT, Green
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 39 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 39 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 39 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/24/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/24/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/25/95 135 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
BILL: HB 81
SHORT TITLE: PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/95 42 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 42 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 42 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, TRANSPORTATION, FINANCE
01/24/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/24/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/26/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/26/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/31/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-5, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representative Ogan,
Green, Ivan, Porter and Willis. Members absent were Representative
Robinson. Chair James stated there was a quorum present.
HSTA - 01/31/95
Number 017
HB 74 - ASSAULT BY ADULTS ON CHILDREN
CHAIR JAMES recognized Representative Con Bunde, sponsor of HB 74.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE reported that Shaun Jensen who was the
impetus of HB 74, and who was schedule to be here, would not be
available to testify due to weather conditions. His plane was
grounded in Sitka. HB 74 was initiated because of public concern
about the attack on this young person, Shaun Jensen, by three
adults who could only be charged with a misdemeanor for their
crime. Representative Bunde said the bill was intended to fill a
gap if adults attack children under the age of ten. Instead of
just being charged with a misdemeanor, it will ensure that they can
be charged with a felony. This bill allows prosecutorial
discretion, where there is an attack on a young person by people
over the age of eighteen. Representative Bunde explained a
discretionary provision has been included, because sometimes there
are minor "fisticuffs" or misunderstandings that do not warrant a
felony charge. Some individuals at age 14 look more like 17 years
old, so there is some discretion required by the prosecutor. Also,
there is public condemnation for people who would willingly and
knowingly attack a young person.
Number 115
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE read the written testimony of Julie Jensen
Zarr for the record. The following testimony was read as follows:
My name is Julie Jensen Zarr and I am here today to ask for
your support in passing House Bill 74. The current assault
law needs to be updated.
On November 11, 1994 at 5:30 a.m. while delivering the
Anchorage Daily News my 14 year old nephew, Shaun Jensen, as
viciously assaulted by 3 adult men in South Anchorage. Shaun
lost 2 permanent teeth, suffered neck trauma and was run over
by his own snow machine. The law as it reads now only made
misdemeanor charges against these men possible, not a message
we want to send to thugs that prey on our young.
In 1971, my family moved to Alaska and settled in South
Anchorage, it was a great place to grow up. We felt safe and
secure walking or horse back riding anywhere. My parents
raised three children in Alaska we are now running our
businesses and raising our children here. The Anchorage of
the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s did not have drive by shootings,
assaults or random senseless acts of violence, the law at that
point in time fit, but in 1995 it does not. As crimes change
so much, the laws must change to fit the crimes of 1995 and
beyond.
This event brought to light for me the need to make a
difference and try to turn a negative into a positive,
teaching my nephew and 2 children of empowerment instead of
victimization. A change in this law will show that through
hard work and believing in an idea one person can make
positive impact on society. The outpouring of support from
the people of Anchorage has also had a healing effect on
Shaun.
Again, I ask for your support in passing House Bill 74. I
want to thank the committee for their attention and support.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to me today.
Number 137
CHAIR JAMES noted, for the record, that Representative Caren
Robinson came in during the sponsor's statement.
Number 140
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked what the charge would be if the same
thing happened to adults. He also questioned whether or not the
injury to Shaun was done by fists. There was some concern on his
part about if the bill was taking this far enough.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that hitting with a fist is not assault
with the deadly weapon unless there is bodily harm. So, the same
damage to adults would just be a misdemeanor. Representative Bunde
said there is a question about the difference between adults and
juveniles, and how to determine if a person is adult. Some 16 year
olds appear to be older. He said it is a frustration, and the law
should be written as "doable" without clogging the system.
Number 213
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER complimented the sponsor of this
legislation for not trying to dig into the criminal statutes and
change standards of physical injury. These standards have been
with us since 1980 and there is a lot of case law behind them.
Trying to tinker in that area because of one situation would be
folly; it would lead to a law that would not fit the next
situation. What this bill does is present a policy-call on whether
the whole category of offense should become a felony.
Representative Porter said he thought the bill was the right
approach that will satisfy the individual case without disrupting
the statutes. He said whenever there is an alleged crime there are
two considerations: (1) if a crime has been committed; and (2)
then proving it. One is called "criminal law" and one is "criminal
evidence." Criminal evidence, having to meet a standard of beyond
a reasonable doubt, is where prosecutors and police officers run
into problems. That was a problem with this case. The use of a
snow machine to run over the child is something most people think
should be a felony, yet it had to be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that the machine was intended to be used as a dangerous
instrument. If that could not be proved, the charge would be a
misdemeanor.
Number 258
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered why they made it the age of 16, not
17 or adulthood. He wondered if maybe they should make it anything
below 18.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE reiterated that some 16 year olds are quite
physically mature and others aren't, so 16 seems to be the cusp of
the change. More 17 and 18 year olds are likely to appear adult
than 16 year olds.
Number 279
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN had a question about the language of the
bill. He wanted a definition of "reasonably" used on page 2, line
5. It states that the "injury reasonably requires medical
treatment."
Number 285
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE answered that a reasonable adult will say
whether an injury is serious enough to require medical attention.
Number 293
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion.
Number 295
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee pass HB 74 out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. There being no objections, it was so ordered.
HSTA - 01/31/95
Number 327
HB 4 - PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND ELIGIBILITY
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT brought a proposed committee substitute (CS) to
present to the committee, as the committee requested at the last
meeting. The CS was CS 9-LS0036-C, dated 1-27-95. He defined the
CS changes, as follows:
1.Section 1 redefines allowable absences as eligibility
criteria instead of elements of residency.
2.Section 2 moves into a new section, those allowable
absences already authorized by statute under AS
43.23.095, the current definition of "state resident."
It makes the historical piggy back allowable absences
previously in regulation a statutory allowable absence.
It is now incorporated in statute.
3.Section 3 deletes the references to absences in the
definition of State resident, since absences are defined
as eligibility criteria in section one and Section 2 of
the bill, so they are trying to conform and remove
conflict. Also, Section 3 makes it clear that while
absent an individual must maintain at all times an intent
to return to the state and remain permanently a resident.
4.Section 4, the Permanent Fund Dividend of certain spouses
retroactively reinstates the eligibility of all otherwise
eligible individuals accompanying their eligible resident
spouses for the years 1992, 1993 and 1994. This will
allow the department to pay piggybacking spouses who were
originally denied those dividends in 1992 and 1993.
5.Section 5 of HB 70, gives up to 1,317 of the 1994
piggybacking spouses who did not appeal by December 1,
1994 the ability to submit an appeal until September 1,
1995.
6.Section 6 makes Sections 1 and 3 retroactive. The one,
effective date January 1995, makes the piggyback
allowable absence effective for the 1995 dividend.
7.Section 7 makes the act effective as soon as it is signed
by the Governor.
Number 402
CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to accept the CS, 9LS0036-C, as the
working document.
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON moved to accept CS 9LS0036-C as the
working document. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 418
CHAIR JAMES confirmed that the committee would be working with this
CS, 9LS0036-C. There were no other persons wishing to testify so
CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion.
Number 420
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved that they pass the CS for HB 4 out of
committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objections,
it was so ordered.
HSTA - 01/31/95
Number 427
HJR 3 - VOTER APPROVAL FOR NEW TAXES
TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Aide to Representative Martin, sponsor of
the measure, testified on the two versions of HJR 3, Version C and
Version F. Version C would require prior voter approval of any
increase in the rate of one or more of those taxes that they are
looking at, ad valorem, retail, or income tax. Version F would
require voter approval of any changes, increases or decreases in
the rate of one or more taxes.
CHAIR JAMES said one change is to vote on any increase as well as
any implementation of any of these. The other says that any
change, whether an increase or decrease, would have to be voted on.
She opened it to discussion.
Number 460
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said the people probably wouldn't have
any argument to decrease taxes so he suggested they adopt Version
C.
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion and Representative Ogan moved to
adopt Version C as the working document. It is number LS0214-C.
Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 478
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN expressed his support for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he could not support this bill at this
time. He questioned the ability of this bill to frustrate the
efforts of the legislature to establish a long range fiscal plan.
If this bill were in place the legislature would have to work
around it, and it would be difficult.
Number 491
CHAIR JAMES said that what they are deciding is whether or not they
wish to put forth this issue to the rest of the members of the
legislature, and whether they wish this to go to the people. There
are some hoops to go through before this would be implemented.
This Version C of HJR 3 would need two-thirds vote on the floor of
the House and Senate, then the bill would have to go to the vote of
the people, and it would have to pass by a majority vote.
Number 500
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that he polled the people in his district
and that at least eight and a half to nine out of ten people spoke
in favor of having the right to vote on taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to pass the resolution out of committee
with individual recommendations.
Number 515
There being objections, CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote.
Representatives Green, Ivan, Willis, Ogan and James voted in favor
of moving HB 4 out of committee. Representatives Porter and
Robinson voted against the bill. The bill passed with individual
recommendations.
HSTA - 01/31/95
Number 535
HB 70 - PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND HOLD HARMLESS
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant to Representative Kott,
sponsor of the bill, said there would be new items in their bill
packet, including a revised fiscal note from the Permanent Fund
Division, and a series of fiscal notes from the Department of
Health and Social Services, demonstrating the financial savings and
expenses to the various programs that are affected by this
legislation. There is also a letter from Hope Cottages expressing
concern about HB 70 and its effects on their program.
Number 562
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT stated that he did not have anything more
to add. However, he would answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wanted assurance that if the bill passed, it
would not cause people to lose their benefits. He said the
Department of Health and Social Services had said that individuals
would not lose their benefits, because they were the administrators
of the program, but that some people questioned if that was true.
Number 600
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to Commissioner Perdue,
Department of Health and Social Services, testified that the
department is opposed to the bill. He asserted that although there
is a net saving if thinking in terms of total funds, there is a net
cost to the state, in terms of general funds.
Number 605
CHAIR JAMES asserted that we have a tax on everyone in the state
for this hold harmless amount. It is never appropriated in the
budget, because it is part of the statute, yet Alaska residents are
paying close to $23 million to $24 million in additional benefits
that would not have to be paid if we did not have the hold harmless
provision. This should be included in the budget appropriations'
process.
Number 622
MR. LINDSTROM said that all the funds, PFD, the various public
assistance programs, and the hold harmless, are included in the
operating budget on an annual basis. The confusion is the funding
source. He said that they dont often talk about that during the
budget deliberation because, again, the hold harmless funds are not
general funds, they are earnings of the permanent fund. They are
real dollars, and they are appropriated through the regular
operating process. The information about the reductions from the
PFD check is included on the PFD check stub.
Number 656
CHAIR JAMES said people are distressed that money comes out of
their PFD checks. The issue is that this is a tax, any time the
state takes money from income, it is a tax. She suggested that we
take the funds from the general fund.
Number 661
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked what the savings would be to the
individual, and what the increased amount would be to the general
fund.
CHAIR JAMES asked if the expense would be the same or less if these
funds were taken from the general fund instead of from the PFD fund
since it would only be a different funding source.
MR. LINDSTROM said the expense would be the same. There would be
an increase of $20 million in the general fund costs, however, if
the legislature were to take that approach. He said that if the
decision were made to fund the hold harmless out of the general
fund it would not require a piece of legislation. It would be a
budget decision made by the finance committees. Legislation would
not be required to accomplish a funding source switch.
TAPE 95-5, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. CURTIS LOMAS, Welfare Reform Coordinator, Department of Public
Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services gave
information on the expenditures on the various relief programs.
About $1,050,000 would be the increased expenditures of the general
relief program; $330,000 would be part of the increased
expenditures in the Medicaid Program; and $472,000 would be the
increased expenditures in Public Assistance administration.
Number 016
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON brought up the debate and the letter from
Hope Cottage that disputes what the Mr. Lomas had said the other
day that people would not lose their medical benefits. They
believe that in cases of nursing homes, and others, that they would
lose their benefits.
Number 025
JON SHERWOOD, Program Coordinator, Division of Medical Assistance,
Department of Health and Social Services, reported that the receipt
of the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) would not disqualify someone
for Medicaid in the month of receipt. If they retained the
dividend, they would become ineligible because they would be what
they call "over resource" in future months. Some people were
placed on the Hold Harmless Program, and about 75 percent of the
spending in the Medicaid Hold Harmless Program is for facilities,
hospitals and nursing homes. They don't know the reasons why
people chose to retain that money, but Mr. Sherwood said they are
pretty sick people, so spending their PFD may not be their first
priority. There are situations where Medicaid allows up to three
months of coverage retroactively. If they are looking at
retroactive cases some people will be disqualified, because of the
receipt of a permanent fund dividend check in a prior month.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked what would happen to someone in a
nursing home if they were dying and received the dividend and were
suddenly ineligible. She asked if they would be kicked out. If
they did not have money to continue to be in the facility, she
asked what would happen to them.
MR. SHERWOOD said he wasn't aware of a case where anyone was
kicked out in a situation like that. Generally, the social workers
at the nursing home would work with the family to try to get the
money spent as soon as possible. If there was a period of
ineligibility that would become a debt that the client had to pay
the nursing home. If the client couldn't pay the debt, it would be
a "bad debt" to the facility. Medicaid also allows provisions for
people to use their income, when they are in a nursing home, to pay
uncovered medical expenses such as expenses they haven't covered.
If someone had some income coming in later months, they could pay
off the debt using that income.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked who is responsible for the bad debt
if the client or family doesn't have money to pay it.
MR. SHERWOOD said that he thought the bad debt does not go into the
rate they pay nursing homes, but he wasn't certain.
Number 100
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that it is not a problem of
accepting the permanent fund dividend, but retaining it.
MR. SHERWOOD said that is the case; there are a few exceptions but
that is the rule.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it puts a person in the unusual
situation of having to spend their money to get more.
MR. SHERWOOD said he is in situations where he encourages people to
plan spending their PFD to pay some uncovered medical expenses.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any other questions of the people
from the Division of Public Assistance.
Number 120
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked if people on public assistance
spend their money on medical expenses, they would lose their PFD.
MR. SHERWOOD said if they spend it in the month they receive it, in
most cases it won't effect their Medicaid eligibility.
Number 150
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he is not familiar with the welfare
program and he asked what the average length of time is that a
family is on public assistance if they got on AFDC or Medicaid or
some sort of Public Assistance.
Number 173
MR. CURTIS LOMIS said it is hard to say. The data they have
indicates that most families remain on public assistance for less
than two years. He did not have detailed length of participation
data to provide specific information on that.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN brought up how different Alaska is from other
states. It is equivalent to five states. It is very diverse and
different circumstances occur if you compare one family in an urban
setting versus a rural setting. He said he would need more
information on the impact of this bill on the different
constituencies before he could consider supporting such legislation
as this.
Number 195
MR. LOMIS presented a legislative research report, prepared last
year, for purposes of analysis for a different piece of
legislation. It is research request 94-94.172, and what it has is
a breakdown of public assistance benefits by community for the
month of October, 1993. This report is being updated by
Legislative Research with October, 1994, information. He referred
the committee to this document for analysis. The numbers are very
representative. REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if they must spend
the PFD in the same month or same year to avoid the problem.
Number 227
MR. LOMAS said they have to spend the PFD check in the same month
it is received. The PFD money is considered as income for that
month. If it is retained in the next month it is a resource, so
then it might put the recipient over the resource line.
Number 214
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON spoke about the lengths of time people are
on public assistance, and about the people who come to Alaska from
the Lower 48 states. There is a strong impact of other people
coming in to get our benefits. She wondered if this would be part
of the research they are doing.
CURTIS LOMAS said the question has come up repeatedly over the last
several years and the department did some research about three
years ago. They questioned applicants who had been in the state
less than a year about their reasons for coming to Alaska. They
come for reasons like anyone else, they are looking for jobs.
There is also a prevailing perception that Alaska is wealthy and it
brings people here.
CHAIR JAMES recalled hearing about people moving into the state
specifically because they had a disabled person in the family and
medical benefits and treatments for disabled people are better here
than in other states. She asked Mr. Lomas to respond to that
issue.
Number 276
CURTIS LOMAS confirmed that the benefit levels in Alaska are higher
than other states, although we are not higher in disability
programs. The department's research does not bear out that
benefits are a major factor when people from other states decide to
come to Alaska.
Number 290
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON wanted to know how much higher our
payments are, and if that is because our cost of doing business
here is higher. She wondered if the reason is that medical costs
are higher and housing is higher; we are not so much higher
compared to the kind of service they can get in the Lower 48.
MR. LOMAS said that when the department has compared the AFDC rates
in our state to that of other states, speaking in terms of the
cost of living in Alaska, Alaska comes close to the top six states
as a percentage of the poverty guide line. As generous as Alaska
is, it is not considered remarkable compared to other states.
Number 308
MR. SHERWOOD said people with disabilities may be intrigued by the
levels of benefit payments in Alaska compared to other states, yet
they lose interest in coming to Alaska when he explains the cost of
rent in Alaska, or the lack of availability of some kinds of
services that disabled people need in many communities.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT returned to give a closing statement on HB 70.
There was concern about how it would effect Child Support and
Enforcement Division (CSED) individuals. Since the last meeting,
he spoke with them and determined that there would not be any
pragmatic impact. Also, he had a preliminary zero fiscal note, so
there is absolutely no impact on CSED.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said there may not be statutory requirements to
change the funding source; however, there would be statutory
requirements to eliminate or delete from statute the hold harmless
provisions, as well as the notification to the public, which is
currently required. There will be some kind of statutory
requirement. Also, there may be some start up costs in the
program. The bill has a Judiciary and Finance referral. There is
a mechanism to transfer people on and off of programs, namely,
automation, and he believes some kind of program can be constructed
to offer ease of transfer and to reduce bureaucratic costs.
Number 385
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he spoke to Jan Hansen who said many
people have come here because of Alaska's public assistant
programs. Ten percent of Alaskan people are receiving some type of
public assistance, one out of ten people. As stated before, the
majority of people on public assistance stay on the program less
than two years. Judging from the information Representative Kott
has, this is a slim majority, Over 40 percent stay on the program
longer than two years.
The fiscal note is based on the theory that everyone currently on
the Hold Harmless Program will accept the PFD check.
Representative Kott thinks that, in the final analysis, people on
public assistance will opt to stay on public assistance program and
not receive the PFD check.
Number 403
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN spoke of his concern to have slow welfare
reform and said he respects the efforts and the intent of this
legislation.
CHAIR JAMES made a comment that many of the problems result from
federal regulations. We are in a transition period, where in
Washington D.C., they are currently working on what to do and how
they will address welfare. Some federal changes might give us more
control over how we handle public assistance.
Number 442
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER does not see this legislation as a step
that would frustrate the attempt at welfare reform. He doesn't
think it will adversely affect anyone, since there are mechanisms
in place for those who have a dire need.
Number 460
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated they are trying to work toward a mind
set of being more self-sufficient.
Number 485
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON voiced her objections. She totally
disagreed with the testimony. She said that passing this bill
would hurt the most needy people in our state, seniors, disabled,
the poor and sickest. She believe they are spending the PFD
frivolously. The permanent fund is part of their wealth that they
deserve to receive. She said she will be voting against this bill.
Number 526
CHAIR JAMES commented that there are the working poor also who are
not on public assistance. Each one of them is paying about $41 of
their permanent fund dividend check to keep these other people
going.
Number 539
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER moved that the committee pass HB 70
from the House State Affairs Committee, with attached fiscal notes
and individual recommendations.
Number 540
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS testified that he will not support the
bill. The intent of this bill was that money be put away for all
generations of Alaskans. All Alaskans deserve its bounty. He
believes that those of us who can work must help the people who
cannot help themselves, and he will not support this bill until he
knows precisely what impact this bill would have. As it is,
everyone is only guessing, so for that reason he will have to vote
"No."
CHAIR JAMES said that the motion before the committee was whether
or not to move this bill out of committee with individual
recommendations. She asked the secretary to call the roll.
Number 590
Representatives Ivan, Robinson and Willis voted against moving HB
70. Representatives Porter, Ogan, Green and James voted in favor
of moving the bill with individual recommendations. The motion
passed and HB 70 was moved out of committee.
The committee took a brief break.
CHAIR JAMES called the meeting back to order at 9:35 a.m.
HSTA - 01/31/95
Number 622
HB 81 - PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
CHAIR JAMES announced that she would roll HB 81 over to the next
meeting. She also said that on February 17, 1995, is an annual
meeting regarding public facilities management, which she will be
attending.
CHAIR JAMES read the Sponsor Statement, updated 1-9-95, for the
record:
The State of Alaska has 2.3 billion dollars invested in 1,717
public buildings. There is currently a gigantic deferred
maintenance backlog (Deferred Maintenance list, prepared by
the Alaska State Facilities Administrators. February 1993,
attached as exhibit #10) for these public buildings, this is
a public disgrace, our buildings are falling down around us
Statewide.
No new construction should be undertaken until we have
repaired and maintained our current facilities to an
acceptable condition. It is senseless to keep building new
facilities while our current buildings deteriorate from a
maintenance need to a replacement need.
This bill requires:
1. All deferred maintenance is to be performed over a 15
year period on all public buildings for a total
appropriation as extrapolated from the fiscal note of
$251,400,000.00 ($113,985,800.00 in the first 6 years) in
capital replacement costs, the sum of the dollars needed
is astonishing. The fiscal note for FY 95 building
operation is $61,102,700.00 and continues annually
forever, adjusted for inflation at an annual rate of 3.5
percent. The operating budget has been underfunded for
a long time and is the reason the deferred maintenance
exists.
2. All new buildings built after #1 is complete will need to
be funded by a formula program to guarantee that the new
buildings will be properly maintained.
The continuing problem of assuring the money appropriated for
maintenance goes to the maintenance is one that we must
examine and incorporate into this bill through the amendment
process.
Public facilities have been underfunded for many years, it is
sheer folly to expect our buildings to fix themselves, and to
continue to ignore this crushing need is totally
irresponsible.
The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is the
agency I will charge with this task of repairing and replacing
our public facilities including University of Alaska
facilities.
CHAIR JAMES said that in the analysis of the bill, all deferred
maintenance on state buildings would take place over a 15 year
period. All new buildings would be constructed after all deferred
maintenance is completed. New construction will be funded by a
formula program to guarantee that they will be properly maintained.
TAPE 95-6, SIDE A
CHAIR JAMES said there are horror stories about maintenance
problems. The state needs operating expenses to avoid these
capital expenses.
Number 016
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS concurred. He served on Military and
Veterans Affairs budget subcommittee last year and found that they
let maintenance slip. A preventative maintenance program could
take care of problems in the first instance and cost considerably
less than the repairs.
Number 050
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON spoke in favor of the bill, saying she
thought it was a good direction for the legislature to move toward.
She asked how the priorities would be set out and if it would be
similar to the school districts are doing now.
Number 108
CHAIR JAMES said there would be an analysis by those people who are
supposed to evaluate what is the most needed. The maintenance
would be brought current over a fifteen year period. Meanwhile, we
would be taking a life-cost basis and in the operating budget we
would be funding what that is, so we could do the keeping up while
catching up.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if they would repeal the way they are
handling maintenance and programs for the school districts now.
CHAIR JAMES answered that there is a dispute as to whether or not
the school districts are doing fine the way they are. They are
doing fine with new buildings, but there is an extensive amount of
deferred maintenance at this point too.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON brought up a Juneau school as a follow-up
to that. The high school is in need of a new roof. Last year,
they are number 7 on the priority list, and this year they are back
down to 47. She was curious about how this would work, because at
the school district level it seems they are in this spinning wheel.
One day they are at four and next year at seven. When thinking
about public facilities, which are grantees through the Division of
Family Youth Services and through the Department of Public Safety,
she wondered if they had considered including these into the
program.
CHAIR JAMES answered, "yes," and then recalled the Fairbanks
Resource Center, which is a grantee of the state. They are
pleading with the state for money to build their own building to
avoid paying the outrageous rent they are paying; then the State
could use their operating funds for the purpose that they are
intended. However, Chair James pointed out that it does not work
that way. It costs nearly as much to own a building as it does to
rent one. This is a myth that many people hold to, but normally,
the cost of maintenance is included in the rent they pay. There
are advantages to owning a building, but it does not necessary save
money.
Number 132
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that CHAIR JAMES' statement was somewhat
accurate, but he would have to debate with her some on it. When
moving into a new building, maintenance would be less. When you
rent a building the amortization costs are factored in as well as
maintenance. In short term, they would have more money, but in
long term, it might cost more.
CHAIR JAMES said that there is a life cost basis for determining
how much should be used for maintenance each year. If money is put
aside on a life cost basis we would have the money when needed for
maintenance.
Number 158
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered what can be done to maintain an
account for maintenance. The legislature changes every two years
and the philosophy of funding also changes.
Number 175
CHAIR JAMES asserted that the legislature cannot be forced to
appropriate funds for anything. It is up to the legislature to do
that, and every two years they are free to budget what they want.
However, the public is greatly distressed with the deferred
maintenance on our public facilities. If there was a provision in
the statutes to allow for a formula driven amount to apply to
maintenance, the general public would not allow the legislature to
turn away from the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inserted that the legislature would need a
proposal to consider.
Number 200
JOHN STEINMANN, Architect, Division of Finance, Department of
Education (DOE), testified in favor of this bill. The Department
of Education is an advocate of maintenance, and there are presently
163 Rural Education Administrative Areas (REAA) and 360 city
borough sites.
CHAIR JAMES asked about a life-cost amount calculated in the amount
to do maintenance and repairs.
MR. STEINMANN said the DOE advocates a plan to work on a long term
life cycle basis.
Number 247
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned there was money in the budget for
maintenance, but it was appropriated to do other things. He was
concerned that this situation might happen again.
MR. STEINMANN wasn't prepared to answer that.
CHAIR JAMES rolled the bill over to the next meeting on Thursday,
February 2, 1995.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the State Affairs
Committee, CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|