Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/25/1994 01:35 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
January 25, 1994
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Tim Kelly, Chairman
Senator Steve Rieger, Vice-Chairman
Senator Bert Sharp
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator Judy Salo
OTHERS PRESENT
Senator Steve Frank
Representative Sean Parnell
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 184
"An Act relating to civil liability of employees and volunteers of
certain nonprofit corporations; and providing for an effective
date."
SENATE BILL NO. 70
"An Act establishing a loan guarantee and interest rate subsidy
program for assistive technology."
HOUSE BILL NO. 180 am
"An Act relating to the residential housing inspection requirements
of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation."
HOUSE BILL NO. 294
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Pharmacy."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 184 - See Labor & Commerce minutes dated 4/13/93.
SB 70 - See HESS minutes dated 3/22/93.
HB 180 - See Community & Regional Affairs minutes dated
4/22/93 and 4/24/93.
HB 294 - No previous action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mike Ford, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
130 Seward Street, Room 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Drafted SB 184.
Roxanne Stewart, Aide
Senator Jim Duncan
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: introduced SB 70.
Stan Ridgeway, Deputy Director
Vocational Rehabilitation
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St., Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 70.
Mark Fresquez
Southeast Alaska Independent Living
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 236
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 70.
Earl Clark
Southeast Alaska Independent Living
9163 Parkwood
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 70.
Steve Priddle
801 Lincoln Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 70.
Jerry Kainulainen
P.O. Box 1629
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 70.
Elena Kilbuck
Southeast Alaska Independent Living
1621 Tongass
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 70.
Nancy Anderson
Southeast Alaska Independent Living
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 70.
Ken Dean
P.O. Box 210529
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 70.
Kay Klose
P.O. Box 22164
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 70.
Joe Tompkins
8221 N. Douglas Highway
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 70.
Connie Anderson
Southeast Alaska Independent Living
P.O. Box 34376
Juneau, Alaska 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 70.
Patty Baumgartner
Southeast Alaska Independent Living
P.O. Box 27491
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 70.
David Harding, Aide
Representative Eileen MacLean
State Capitol, Room 507
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 180.
Robert Brean, Director
Rural Housing Division
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
Department of Revenue
520 E. 34th
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 180.
Duane Wise
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
Department of Revenue
520 E. 34th
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 180.
Karl Luck, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Dept. of Commerce & Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 294.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-2 SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN TIM KELLY called the Labor and Commerce Committee meeting g
to order at 1:35 p.m.
SENATOR KELLY introduced SB 184 (VOLUNTEERS AND EMPLOYEES OF
NONPROFITS) and invited the sponsor, SENATOR STEVE FRANK, to review
his bill.
SENATOR FRANK gave some past history on the bill and made the
committee aware the original bill proposed to make volunteers and
employees of non-profit corporations in Alaska immune to civil
liability for damages incurred while they were working on the job.
He explained subsequent work on the bill has produced a proposed
committee substitute to eliminate "employees" from personal
liability, and he referred to Subsection (b) on page 1 of the
proposed committee substitute for SB 184.
SENATOR KELLY called the committee's attention to the language on
page 2, line 11, Subsection (d) which reads: "This section does
not preclude liability for civil damages as a result of gross
negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct." He asked for
a motion to adopt the committee substitute.
SENATOR RIEGER questioned the comparison of the original bill to
committee substitute change on page 2, lines 5 through 10, and
expressed some discomfort to extending immunity to the corporation.
He used AHFC as an example of a non-profit corporation which might
benefit from the provision.
Number 053
SENATOR FRANK was not sure the AHFC was a good example of a non-
profit corporation as far as the compensation of the board, and he
couldn't think of anyone volunteering at AHFC.
SENATOR RIEGER asked for clarification of the changes in question,
and SENATOR FRANK asked the bill drafter, MIKE FORD, to answer
questions.
MR. FORD drew attention to the change in the title of the proposed
committee substitute for SB 184, which he explained was because of
Subsection (c) on page 2. He also explained the new provision
would extend immunity to corporations and the amount of damages
that could be recovered to the amount of the insurance. MR. FORD
opined SENATOR RIEGER was correct.
SENATOR KELLY questioned whether this had been done on purpose.
His aide, JOSH FINK, said it was an amendment before the committee
last session. He explained the issue was raised as a result of a
letter from the Office of ATTORNEY GENERAL COLE in a letter dated
April 28, 1993, and placed in the bill packets. MR. FINK reviewed
the points in the letter concerning the liability of the non-profit
corporations as compared to the volunteers.
SENATOR KELLY questioned MR. FORD whether Subsection (c) only
restricts the liability of the corporation concerning the
volunteer.
MR. FORD answered it was damages resulting from an act or omission
of a volunteer that would impact the corporation.
SENATOR FRANK posed a scenario where a volunteer commits simple
negligence and the non-profit corporation was sued, and the damages
were limited to $500 thousand. MR. FORD said he was correct.
Number 096
SENATOR SALO asked if the $500 thousand was in statute as a
required amount of insurance. SENATOR FRANK said she was basically
correct, and MR. FORD said it was a floor, but it could be more.
SENATOR KELLY clarified a non-profit corporation would not get
immunity for their volunteers unless they had insurance in the
amount of $200 thousand, and MR. FORD confirmed the corporation
would need liability insurance.
MR. FORD suggested another wrinkle in which non-profit corporations
could be exempt from the insurance requirement if they have
operating costs of less than $100 thousand, and they are also
exempt under federal law. He described a situation in which a non-
profit is not insured, but would be immune.
SENATOR KELLY led a short discussion on these provisions with
committee members and suggested it was the small non-profits that
have more dependence on the volunteers. He said it would solve the
problem of exempting the non-profit corporation, AHFC.
SENATOR LINCOLN questioned whether all small corporations would be
immune if there was gross negligence or recklessness.
SENATOR SALO asked MR. FORD for a legal difference between the
terms, "simple negligence" and "gross negligence." MR. FORD spoke
of extensive review by the courts, and concluded it is a matter of
degree in the conduct. He gave an example of the meaning.
SENATOR SHARP wanted assurance it wold not exempt any non-profit
corporations for actions by any person receiving compensation - for
volunteers only. MR. FORD said he was correct.
SENATOR KELLY asked for a motion on the committee substitute.
Number 149
SENATOR SHARP moved to adopt CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 184(L&C).
Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR SHARP moved to pass CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 184(L&C)
(VOLUNTEERS AND EMPLOYEES OF NONPROFITS) from committee with
individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. Without
objections, so ordered.
SENATOR KELLY introduced SB 70 (ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN
GUARANTEES) by SENATOR JIM DUNCAN, and invited his aide, ROXANNE
STEWART, to present the bill.
MS. STEWART thanked SENATOR KELLY for hearing the bill, even though
SENATOR DUNCAN was not able to be present. She explained their
office had received a new proposal from the Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation, a copy of which was given to JOSH FINK, aide to
SENATOR KELLY. MS. STEWART also explained it would necessitate
changes to the bill if the committee chooses to accept the changes.
MS. STEWART reviewed the provisions of the legislation which would
establish the Assistive Technology Loan Guarantee Program, would
assist persons with disabilities to purchase durable equipment,
adaptive aids, and assistive devices to obtain or maintain their
employment or to live more independently. She explained the bill
had included employers in the program, but the new proposal would
eliminate the employers from the program.
MS. STEWART suggested the committee look at SB 70 as a job's bill
for persons with disabilities. Using the federal receipts, which
are referenced in the fiscal note, she said the program would allow
the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation to guarantee loans made
to individuals with disabilities by private lending institutions.
MS. STEWART explained the loan recipient must be unable to obtain
the needed equipment through Vocational Rehabilitation, MEDICAID,
MEDICARE, or other sources such as insurance companies. Under the
bill, a loan could be used for purchase or modification of a
vehicle, if the person lives independently or with their parents or
guardian, and has been employed a minimum of 90 days before the
initial loan request.
MS. STEWART said the present legislation requires the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation to determine the applicant's ability to
make loan payments and assume other responsibilities normally
carried out by lending institutions. She explained this would be
changed in the new proposal from the Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation, and she further explained the proposal would
clarify the respective responsibilities of the lenders, the
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, and establish a loan
committee to administer the program.
MS. STEWART reported the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
commissioned a study during the interim to determine the most
effective means of implementing the loan program, based on what
works in other states, which, she said, was the basis of the bill
before the committee. In the proposal the participating lending
institutions would process the loans using their standard
procedures; however, if the borrower is not able to afford the
payments due to the interest rate, the lender would refer the
person to the Assistive Technology Loan Guarantee Program for an
interest rate buy down.
MS. STEWART said she was not able to get the suggested amendments
drafted before the committee meeting, but she offered assistance to
work with SENATOR KELLY'S staff if he chose to make the amendments.
Number 199
MR. FINK explained to SENATOR KELLY the new proposal was delivered
just prior to the committee meeting. SENATOR KELLY said a
committee substituted would be drafted with the help of all of the
participants in the legislation, but in the mean time he planned to
continue the testimony on SB 70.
Next, SENATOR KELLY called on STAN RIDGEWAY, Deputy Director for
the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, and asked if he wished
to testify, or present his position paper.
MR. RIDGEWAY said he was willing to work with staff on the changes
to the committee substitute and leave the time for testimony.
MARK FRESQUEZ testified as a hearing impaired person in support of
HB 139 (ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEES), a companion bill to
SB 70. He explained his support in terms of the benefits, not only
to the persons with disabilities, but to their families, employers,
co-workers, and the general public.
MR. FRESQUEZ explained how he would be helped, not only in his
world of work, but his social life. He explained how this
assistance impacted the hearing impaired person working in an
office, who, because they could answer the phone with a TDY system
could get a promotion - and a feeling of pride.
Number 261
EARL CLARK, next to testify, showed his disability in a slow,
halting walk to the microphone. He works for the Southeast Alaska
Independent Living Center with people who are disabled to varying
degrees.
MR. CLARK was enthusiastic in his praise that with assistive
technology, namely a computer, he was able to become computer
literate and save his career. He said the program provides
technology to people who have the possibilities of employment and
make them productive citizens of society. MR. CLARK said SB 70 was
really an investment with an unlimited ability to help people who
need help at crucial times in their lives.
Number 294
SENATOR KELLY asked MS. STEWART if the program would allow the
purchase of computers. She said it did.
SENATOR SALO questioned the availability of the technology to the
person but not to the employer. MS. STEWART said that was correct,
and referred her question to MR. RIDGEWAY.
MR. RIDGEWAY explained, under the Assistive Technology of Alaska
Advisory Board (ATA), the employer has a separate obligation to
provide technology to a person with a disability and have tax
advantages to supply the equipment if it is for a person with a
disability. He also explained the adaptive equipment needed by the
employer is relatively simply, and he gave an example.
MR. RIDGEWAY said the assistive technology bill is mainly aimed at
helping individuals rather than businesses or corporations.
SENATOR KELLY next turned to the Teleconference Network to take
testimony from Sitka before returning to Juneau.
STEVE PRIDDLE testified as a consumer and in favor of SB 70. He
described his disability as a dual sensory lock, both blindness and
hearing impairment. He explained he was presently in college,
going for a degree in law, and able to maintain a 3.2 grade point.
He gave adaptive technology credit for his success, and he stressed
a significant need in Alaska for legislation such as SB 70 to help
those people who need assistive technology.
JERRY KAINULAINEN, testifying from Sitka, explained he was also a
user of assistive technology, since his means of mobility is with
a wheelchair, aided by a wheelchair lift in his van. He listed
reasons for his support for SB 70 and the House companion bill:
assisted communications, computer applications, environmental
control systems, home or work site modifications, hearing and
vision aides, mobility applications, and adaptive toys.
MR. KAINULAINEN referred to a study conducted by the Institute of
Social and Economic Research (ISER) in the Spring of 1991, which he
explained documented a considerable need for the assistive
technology. He quoted the survey as finding that 61% of the
respondents to the study paid for their own devices; next being 13%
with payments by private insurance companies, 10% from families,
making it 84% altogether from these sources. He quoted other
statistics to support SB 70.
MR. KAINULAINEN explained there were similar bills in other states
with programs doing very well with low default rates in most of the
programs.
Number 393
Hearing no questions from committee members, SENATOR KELLY turned
to Ketchikan to hear ELENA KILBUCK.
MS. KILBUCK introduced herself as working for the Southeast Alaska
Independent Living program and explained there were three consumers
and two citizens in Ketchikan, who agree that SB 70 is an
opportunity the community can use, and she explained their needs.
While a person was wheeling forth in her chair to testify, JOE
TOMPKINS explained how the committee room was not accessible.
SENATOR LINCOLN agreed this was a good point, and SENATOR KELLY
wondered how she had gotten into the building. SENATOR LINCOLN
said a portable mike was needed.
NANCY ANDERSON, who was unable to maneuver behind the table,
explained she was a member of the Assistive Technologies of Alaska
Council and the Southeast Alaska Independent Living Board. She
testified as a consumer that the bill was more than a good thing to
do, it would likely get people employed.
MS. ANDERSON brought up the problem of not being able to get to an
interview for a job because of an inadequate vehicle, or not having
a wheelchair. She explained, in her own case, she presently has no
transportation since her disability grew out of her car, and she is
now dependent on other means of transportation.
MS. ANDERSON said there would be an increase in her activities if
she had a lift equipped van, but she was told the insurance company
would not pay for that kind of equipment, since it isn't directly
medically related.
Number 447
MS. ANDERSON explained she has had assistance from Vocational
Rehabilitation, but they have a limit on how much they can spend.
The lift on the van would cost $12 thousand, but Vocational
Rehabilitation can only pay $5 thousand. She said there were many
disabled people in a situation where they have exhausted all of
their resources.
MS. ANDERSON continued discussing disability problems such as being
able to purchase a special kind of blanket for those who can't
maneuver under a heavy blanket. She concluded her testimony by
stressing the need in the State of Alaska for adaptive technology.
SENATOR SALO asked MS. ANDERSON whether there should be a maximum
per individual using the loan fund. MS. ANDERSON thought there was
limit.
MS. STEWART opined there was a $10 thousand limit, but that
provisions should be removed in a committee substitute, with the
committee in Vocational Rehabilitation deciding on the maximum.
SENATOR KELLY clarified the payment schedule, but said there was no
limit. He discussed with SENATOR SALO and MS. ANDERSON the limits
on the funding for $10 thousand wheelchair lifts, and MS. ANDERSON
suggested a mechanism to make funding depend on the pot of money
available. She thought it was better to help a significant number
of people, even if they had to pay part of the cost of the adaptive
equipment themselves.
SENATOR SHARP thought the $100 thousand was to be used to subsidize
interest reductions and to leverage to a larger amount.
MS. STEWART quoted the Assistive Technology Council as saying they
would put $100 thousand annually into the fund.
SENATOR KELLY asked if federal funding was in the legislation, and
there was reference to the fiscal note. MS. ANDERSON explained it
would not be an interest free loan, which would provide additional
money to the fund, and she cited an increase in funds in other
states.
KEN DEAN, an Auke Bay consumer, expressed concern for the potential
limits on individual loans, and noted the cost of his wheelchair
was $13 thousand plus $12 thousand for the lift in his van, all
paid by him or his insurance company. These assistive devices have
provided him with ongoing employment for the last five years, along
with providing the college education MR. DEAN needed to pursue his
career.
MR. DEAN explained he was fortunate in that he previously had a
good paying job until disease took his mobility away, but he was
able to cross train and retrain through the university system. He
was able to land a good job with a caring employer, who has helped
him with his purchase of assistive devices. MR. DEAN hoped the
legislation would help other disabled people to make suitable
financial arrangements to open an area of accomplishments - instead
of being housebound.
SENATOR KELLY and SENATOR RIEGER discussed the passage of SB 70
from the HESS Committee in the original form.
Next to testify was KAY KLOSE, an independent living specialist
working throughout Southeast communities providing advocacy and
case management services. She also returned to the 1991 survey
conducted by ISER, which found there were between twenty and
twenty-three thousand people who were disabled, but the study did
not include those disabled people in institutional settings.
MS. KLOSE said the survey also indicated that 58% of Alaskans, who
need assisted technology do not have access to it, and rural
Alaskans represent the largest unserved population.
MS. KLOSE said this failure to have appropriate technology
minimizes people's lives and their abilities to contribute as
inclusive, productive members of society. She claimed there were
over 40 thousand assistive technology devices available today, and
she listed the aids in mobility, communication, adaptive computers,
electronic systems, all kinds of prothesis, vehicle modification,
and recreational devices such as used at Eaglecrest. MS. KLOSE
said the cost for these devices was very expensive, and she
reviewed the cost of some of them.
TAPE 94-2 SIDE B
Number 001
MS. KLOSE continued to discuss the improvement of accessibility,
the employment and promotion of disabled persons, the reduction of
worker's compensation costs, and the need to develop additional
work forces. She explained persons with disabilities, families,
and employers would be able to make direct application to their
local bank for this loan.
MS. KLOSE closed her remarks by explaining there was no cost to the
state budget and the federal funds would guarantee up to 90% of the
loan principal amount. She said she was the only person not
disabled in her office, and she was amazed at what the staff was
able to do, provided they have assistive technology available to
them.
SENATOR KELLY continued to invite others to speak to the committee.
JOE TOMPKINS thanked the committee for their time. He suggested to
the members they use a wheelchair for a week, wear a blindfold for
a day, or plug their ears to experience the difference in trying to
do all the things they do during the day.
Because of a non-profit organization and volunteers, MR. TOMPKINS
described how he was able to go skiing for the first time last
Saturday at Eaglecrest, which was something he had never done
before. He praised the volunteers who happily helped him ski.
Without Vocational Rehabilitation, MR. TOMPKINS would not have been
able to testify, and he explained the doors on his house had to be
widened to accommodate his wheelchair. He asked the committee to
pass SB 70 because there were many more things he wanted to do.
MR. TOMPKINS described how the set-up of the committee room did not
consider wheelchairs or blind people. He urged the committee
members to be more understanding of the challenges facing the
disabled.
Number 045
Next to testify was CONNIE ANDERSON, who is hearing impaired. She
introduced herself as the Executive Director of Southeast Alaska
Independent Living, and the current Chair of the State of Alaska
Independent Living Council, and she explained the services provided
by both of these groups.
MS. ANDERSON reviewed the intent of the Assistive Technology Loan
Guarantee and Interest Subsidy program, and how the program enables
the disabled to purchase assistive technology equipment which is
necessary to their employment and/or their independence.
MS. ANDERSON explained that with the advent of technology in the
work place and the community, it has become more critical that
people with disabilities have the same opportunities to purchase
and utilize whatever assistive or adaptive technology necessary to
assist them with daily living and employment. She gave examples of
"high-tech" devices such as computers, reader/scanners, and speech
synthesizers.
MS. ANDERSON also referred to the ISER research conducted from
November 1990 to January 1991, in which is was found there were
approximately 22,000 persons in Alaska who experience a disability.
This figure did not include the disabled in institutions or those
without phones or deaf. She quoted the study's estimate that over
fourteen thousand of the people in the study could benefit from the
use of assistive technology equipment especially designed for their
needs.
MS. ANDERSON also quoted from the ISER study that the most common
reason why this assistive technology equipment is not used is that
people cannot afford the cost of the special equipment.
In addition, MS. ANDERSON said the survey documented that Alaska
natives with disabilities and rural Alaskans with disabilities not
only constituted a greater need for all types of assistive
technology but it represented the largest unmet need. She reviewed
the most common types of equipment such telecommunication devices
for the deaf, (TDD) which MS. ANDERSON said she used to answer the
telephone.
Number 117
In her final words of support for SB 70, MRS. ANDERSON said, "This
initiative has no immediate impact on the current state budget. It
is anticipated that federal funding of approximately $100,000 will
serve as seed money to this program. These federal monies will
guarantee up to 90% of the loan principal amount or subsidize the
interest of the loan to a state or federally chartered financial
institution. Persons with disabilities, their families, and their
employers will be able to make a direct application to their local
bank for an assistive technology loan."
SENATOR LINCOLN asked for a copy of MS. ANDERSON'S testimony.
SENATOR LINCOLN clarified with MR. RIDGEWAY that 38% of those with
disabilities were Bush Alaska residents, and she gave the example
of helping a constituent who needed a stroller to use for a
disabled child. She described the difficulty in securing both the
certification from an Assistive Technology Resource Center and the
application for the low-interest, long term loan, because there are
no banks or eligibility offices in the Bush. She hoped this would
be resolved.
Number 164
SENATOR KELLY next called on PATTY BAUMGARTNER, who is sight
impaired and accompanied by her working dog.
MS. BAUMGARTNER explained she was a coordinator for older, blind
Alaskans, including those with low vision. In reference to the
problems outlined by SENATOR LINCOLN, she described the extent of
an out-reach program into the rural areas for information and
referral.
MS. BAUMGARTNER told of the frustrations of going from being a
sighted person to not being able to read anything, but she
described scanning devices to allow her to read any typed print.
She also described other devices connected to a computer that would
talk to her, and how important these devices were to her work.
MS. BAUMGARTNER talked about the importance of being able to
purchase these devices, but how you lose income when you lose your
eye sight. She said you can't get a conventional loan to buy an
unconventional device, and she outlined the problems of trying to
persuade a bank to loan money to a disabled person.
She also talked in terms of wanting to be an asset rather than a
liability to society, and how it can be accomplished with an
affordable loan.
SENATOR KELLY said staff would work together to develop a committee
substitute, and he posed questions about all phases of the loans,
restricting the money, and the availability of the funding. He
thought the banking terms would have to be strengthened, and the
problems with foreclosing on a loan from a disabled person.
SENATOR KELLY expressed concerns that some banks might not even
want to make these loans, unless there was encouragement to do so.
He indicated the committee would work on a committee substitute to
the persons who testified.
Number 224
SENATOR SALO returned to MS. BAUMGARTNER to ask her how she handles
her paperwork load now. MS. BAUMGARTNER said she presently has an
employed reader, but she also described a working agreement with
many people who generate the paper to send it on a diskette. She
explained she has Wordperfect with Windows on her computer at work,
and when she inserts the diskette, her computer talks to her. MS.
BAUMGARTNER said it was a mutual cooperation with other agencies
such as the City & Borough of Juneau. She described how some of
her information comes to her on cassette.
SENATOR SALO asked about the price of the computer that talks, and
MS. BAUMGARTNER answered that the one she has at home, an Apple
IIGF, is about $5 thousand. She described other types of computers
as well as software that turns the spoken word into print and to
braille which was $195. She thought there were many marvelous
programs on the market now for disabled persons and for bilingual
persons.
SENATOR SALO asked about her dog's name, and MS. BAUMGARTNER
introduced her seeing eye dog, Snoopy.
Number 259
CONNIE ANDERSON asked to comment on the computers, the financing,
and the need for ready access in their office.
MS. BAUMGARTNER described how some people in their fifties are
loosing both their eye sight and their jobs - and they are not
ready to retire. The problems of access and cost can turn a person
into a liability, and she explained how she helps them get a piece
of equipment to help them remain productive.
SENATOR SHARP asked about the maximum allowable and running afoul
of restrictions on federal money.
SENATOR KELLY clarified there presently was no "maximum allowable"
in SB 70, and he asked MR. RIDGEWAY if anything would preclude
buying a 35 foot seiner with assistive technology on it.
MR. RIDGEWAY discussed the process of the loan committee, and he
reminded the committee the loan had to be repaid. He said it was
difficult to think in terms of buying a boat as an assistive
technology device, but he thought it may come up. He thought the
loan committee would limit the loans to insure it was helping the
person to live independently and to work.
Number 310
In reading the bill, SENATOR SHARP decided there was a limitation
to the payment period of four to six years.
MR. RIDGEWAY explained that last year in the HESS Committee,
SENATOR RIEGER brought up many of the technical questions on how to
manage the loan. He noted the President of the Alaska Banker's
Association testified in favor of SB 70. He said forty two other
states have these loan programs, and three of the states have
capitalized their loans through federal funds, which is the way the
Administration wants to structure the loan program in SB 70.
SENATOR KELLY questioned which banks in Alaska would provide these
loans, and MR. RIDGEWAY answered that banks were supporting the
loan legislation because of their requirement for community
reinvestment. MR. RIDGEWAY also described the difficulty banks had
in repossessing equipment purchased for the disabled, but the bank
are in agreement because the loans are guaranteed at 90% and can be
claimed as a community reinvestment project.
SENATOR KELLY clarified it was a loan program, not a welfare
program, and he explained the collateral side of the program.
Number 350
MS. ANDERSON said that banks had looked at the track records of
other states with similar programs, which claim a spectacular
response and low default rates in relation to other consumer loans.
SENATOR KELLY said he would like to see the results from some of
the other programs in terms of limits on loans, interest rates,
origination fees, and financial institutions. He asked MS. STEWART
if the program was limited to banks, or did it include credit
unions. She explained it was "lending institutions," and they
concluded it would be credit unions, too.
MS. ANDERSON pointed out, in the example of the seine boat, the
loans are not structured to purchase the boat, but the assistive
technology could be purchased on a boat. She also reviewed the
loan procedures for handling the debt load of the prospective
borrower.
SENATOR KELLY explained the legislation would allow a bank to loan
on a van plus the modifications, but it would be difficult to
purchase many of these large ticket items with the $100 thousand
funding available, even when leveraged up to $750 thousand. He
wondered if the fishing boat would qualify as durable goods, and he
was concerned about the limited amount of money. SENATOR KELLY
wanted to see more definition in the bill.
MR. RIDGEWAY thought an answer to his concerns was in taking out
the employer as a recipient of an Assistive Technology Loan.
SENATOR KELLY agreed the program was a good idea and the committee
should work on a draft on which all participants could agree, and
go forward from there.
Number 401
SENATOR LINCOLN asked when the bill could be expected back in
committee, and she talked in terms of helping those who testified,
and for those across the state who also have a need.
SENATOR KELLY asked about the status of the companion bill, HB 139,
and was informed it was still in the first committee of referral.
He said he would start with providing a committee substitute.
SENATOR KELLY introduced HB 180 AM (ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE
CORPORATION HOUSING INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS) sponsored by
REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN, and he called on her aide, DAVID
HARDING, to review the bill.
MR. HARDING reviewed some previous action by explaining, "When, in
1992 the legislature merged the Department of Regional Affairs
Rural Housing Loan Program (DCRA) into AHFC, the rural loans became
subject to certain housing inspection requirements as listed in AS
18.56.300(b). These requirements were never intended to apply to
rural housing loan programs; in fact, AHFC's primary rural loan
program, non-conforming housing, is specifically exempted in the
status. Rural housing loans have been subject to AHFC inspection
requirements since July 1, 1992."
MR. HARDING cited problems with inspection requirements that were
not originally intended to affect rural loans, but has caused an
unfair burden on rural homeowners, which was not the legislative
intent. Rather than exempting the rural housing loan program from
these requirements, REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN felt the rural home
owners and rural lenders would benefit from some form of an
inspection program.
MR. HARDING quoted REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN's Sponsor Statement to
provide flexibility in the program in HB 180.
"It broadens the pool of eligible inspectors in rural areas by
allowing licensed architects and engineers to conduct the
inspections. These professionals are clearly qualified to
accomplish the task, and they often travel to rural areas to
monitor construction projects.
Number 450
It allows AHFC to identify other qualified individuals in rural
communities. A local contractor or journeymen in a trade might be
obvious candidates to carry out part or all of a remote inspection.
It authorizes inspection methods other than a physical site visit
by an inspector. For example, AHFC could approve an inspection of
footings and foundations based on video tape or photographs."
In addition, MR. HARDING explained HB 180 would allow AHFC to
accept building methods or materials that may not meet state
building codes if the corporation is satisfied that the code
variation does not sacrifice health or safety. If a building
material is available that may not meet code but would stand up to
an engineering review, then AHFC would be allowed to accept such
equivalent substitution. He said this would save on building costs
and make use of available materials in remote locations.
MR. HARDING explained the International Conference of Building
Officials (IBCO) inspection requirements were originally put into
law in order to address the concerns of some builders in the
Railbelt, and he promised the proposed changes would not affect any
builders on the road system, but would only address problems in
rural Alaska loan programs.
SENATOR KELLY asked if this would include Sitka, and MR. HARDING
answered it would exempt both Sitka and Juneau, because any place
that has a municipal building code is already exempt. SENATOR
KELLY led a general discussion of this provision which is in
current law.
SENATOR KELLY said he agreed with the thrust of SB 180, but he
wanted to be sure there was an adequate definition of rural. MR.
HARDING reviewed the list of exempt communities that have their own
codes, including a number in Southeast. SENATOR SHARP had some
questions because he didn't think the definition was inclusive, but
MR. HARDING clarified the list.
Number 499
SENATOR KELLY asked whether Cordova was on the list, and SENATOR
SALO asked about Soldotna. MR. HARDING explained Cordova would
come under the provisions of HB 180, but Soldotna was not included
in the exemption because it is on the road system.
SENATOR SALO questioned the video tape method of inspecting
footings and foundations, and MR. HARDING answered it would be up
to the discretion of AHFC to allow this method.
SENATOR KELLY asked who was on teleconference in Anchorage from
AHFC, and he was told ROBERT BREAN, who introduce two other
persons.
SENATOR KELLY questioned whether any of the three had any
objections to the bill, and MR. BREAN indicated they had worked
with the sponsor in suggesting the amendments, in order to provide
the flexibility for rural Alaska.
SENATOR KELLY asked if they had any proposed amendments to HB 180,
and MR. BREAN indicated they did not. SENATOR KELLY clarified they
supported HB 180 as amended by the House and now before the
Judiciary Committee.
SENATOR SHARP asked the AHFC members if they were able to determine
any trends in losses or lack of quality due to less stringent
inspections than on other AHFC financed houses.
MR. BREAM described a period when they were exempt until after the
merger with AHFC in 1992, and he further explained the present
flexibility presently used in the inspections. He assured the
committee their goal is an improvement in the quality of housing
all over the State of Alaska, rural Alaska included.
SENATOR SHARP asked if AHFC specifically got complaints from buyers
about the quality of the homes, or lack of quality after they buy
them. MR. BREAM explained in many cases, these were owner built
houses, with the owner acting as their own contractor. He further
explained foreclosed properties were sold "as is," and the foremost
concern in the rural areas is the availability of housing.
SENATOR KELLY clarified that the AHFC would not allow an owner-
builder to inspect their own house. MR. BREAN said he was correct,
and he described their procedures.
SENATOR RIEGER questioned AHFC about title insurance for rural
housing loans, and DUANE WISE answered that they do.
TAPE 94-3 SIDE A
Number 001
SENATOR KELLY took an informal poll of the persons in the committee
audience and found there was support for the bill. He then ask for
the will of the committee.
SENATOR RIEGER said that in reading AS 18.56.300(b), he didn't
think it was clear the stated exemption for some communities
applies in Subsection (b) the way it does in Subsection (a). He
wanted to check on the provisions before voting.
SENATOR KELLY asked about the next committee of referral, and MR.
FINK said there was no Finance Committee referral.
SENATOR RIEGER explained the differences in Subsections (a) and (b)
claiming Subsection (b) did not give the same exemption.
SENATOR KELLY said, since Labor & Commerce was the last committee
of referral, the committee would hang on to the bill just long
enough to straighten out the subsections. He said the bill would
be returned to committee as soon as possible.
SENATOR KELLY introduced HB 294 (EXTEND THE BOARD OF PHARMACY)
sponsored by REPRESENTATIVE SEAN PARNELL, and invited KARL LUCK,
Director of the Division of Occupational Licensing for the Dept. of
Commerce and Economic Development, to testify on the bill.
MR. LUCK stated the department was in favor of the recommendation
by the auditors to extend this board, and he commented on the
fiscal note showing the revenues did not equal the annual cost of
the operations, until last May when the fees were adjusted for all
of the professions. He explained that as all of the professions
renew their licenses their fees will cover the exact cost of
operating each of the individual boards.
SENATOR KELLY questioned this change in fees, and MR. LUCK answered
it was pro-rationed for each individual board, explaining there
were now 32 separate budgets instead of one budget for the whole
Division of Occupational Licensing. He explained the current
budgeting process within the Division of Occupational Licensing.
SENATOR SALO questioned how a professional person would know how
much their license would cost. MR. LUCK said the fees were set in
regulation, and he explained how they were established. SENATOR
SALO asked what the fees are now, and MR. LUCK did not have that
information with him. He offered to provide it to her, and she
accepted.
SENATOR LINCOLN questioned the auditor's recommendation on the
extension of the Board of Pharmacy to June 30, 2003 and the date of
the bill as 1997. She asked for the reason for the difference.
Number 051
MR. LUCK explained to SENATOR LINCOLN the governor had disagreed
with the recommendations from the Legislative Auditor to push the
licenses out to a 10 year window, because it would limit the
governor's ability to cut costs or boards if needed.
SENATOR KELLY quoted an auditor's report that a four year sunset is
one of the shortest in all the states, with most states having a
longer sunset provision.
SENATOR LINCOLN asserted boards have been eliminated before their
expiration date. SENATOR KELLY agreed the legislature could
abolish the board any time they liked, and suggested an expiration
date of 2000.
The sponsor, REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL, had no problems with the
extension, but he thought there was a statutory provision
prohibiting a ten year extension.
SENATOR KELLY suggested using 1999, but returning to the original
if it was not possible.
SENATOR LINCOLN referred to the fiscal note by COMMISSIONER PAUL
FUHS, and asked whether the fees would meet the cost. MR. LUCK
assured her it was being done and explained how all the fees were
adjusted.
SENATOR RIEGER moved to amend the date to 1999 in HB 294 (EXTEND
THE BOARD OF PHARMACY). Without objections, SENATOR KELLY
announced the adoption of CSHB 294(L&C).
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL testified that AS 44.66.010 speaks to the
termination of boards and commissions, with a process for
termination. He thought the statute gave the committee authority
to extend the date to 1999, and he thanked the committee.
SENATOR SHARP moved to pass SENATE CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 294(L&C)
(EXTEND THE BOARD OF PHARMACY) from committee with individual
recommendations. Without objections, so ordered.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. by SENATOR KELLY.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|