Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/18/2002 03:40 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
April 18, 2002
3:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gene Therriault, Chair
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 162
"An Act relating to absences from the state under the longevity
bonus program."
MOVED SCS HB 162(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 55
"An Act changing the name of the Alaska Pioneers' Home to the
Alaska Pioneers' and Veterans' Home and of the Alaska Pioneers'
Homes Advisory Board to the Alaska Pioneers' and Veterans' Home
Advisory Board; relating to services for veterans in the home;
relating to the advisory board for the home; making other
amendments to the statutes relating to the home; making
conforming amendments to other statutes; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED CSSB 55(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 53
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Barbers
and Hairdressers."
MOVED SB 53 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 53 - No previous action to record.
SB 55 - See State Affairs minutes dated 2/8/01, 5/5/01.
HB 162 - See HESS minutes dated 4/20/01 and 1/28/02 and
State Affairs minutes dated 4/2/02.
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative John Davies
Alaska State Capitol, Room 415
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 53
Milton Wiltse, Director
Alaska Geological & Geophysical Surveys
794 University Ave, Suite 200
Fairbanks, AK 99707-3645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 53
Rod Combellick
Engineering Geology Chief
794 University Ave, Suite 200
Fairbanks, AK 99707-3645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 53
Jim Duncan, Commissioner
Department of Administration
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 55
Merrill J. Hakala
140 Front Street
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 55
Harry Jenkins
th
210 10 Ave
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 55
Don Hoover
1029 Kodiak
Fairbanks, AK 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 55
Major General Phil Oates
Adjutant General/Commissioner
Department of Military &
Veterans Affairs
PO Box 5800
Ft Richardson, AK 99505-0800
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 55
Laddie Shaw
Special Assistant
Office of Veteran Affairs
Department of Military &
Veterans Affairs
PO Box 5800
Ft Richardson, AK 99505-0800
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 55
Gary Berry
American Legion representative
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 55
Clayton E. Love
Disabled American Veterans representative
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 55
Representative Gretchen Guess
Alaska State Capitol, Room 112
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor HB 162
James Kohn, Director
Division of Alaska Longevity Programs
Department of Administration
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-23, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN GENE THERRIAULT called the Senate State Affairs
Committee meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. Present were Senators
Davis, Stevens and Chairman Therriault. Senator Halford arrived
shortly thereafter.
HB 53-SEISMIC HAZARDS SAFETY COMMISSION
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, sponsor, explained the bill would
create an Alaska Seismic Safety Commission. This is necessary
because although there are current ongoing efforts to mitigate
hazards and risks of earthquakes, the efforts are spread among
agencies. This high level commission would look across agency
boundaries. It is important to have an ongoing effort to
continuously improve the state's preparedness.
Building codes and earthquake insurance are the kinds of issues
that need more attention and require a long-term view. Large
magnitude earthquakes are a rare event, but an extreme hazard
nonetheless. This type of commission is needed to remind people
that we need to be worried about them. It's easy to forget how
devastating an earthquake can be because the catastrophic ones
are infrequent.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted a number of other states have a safety
council or a consortium. He asked whether the proposed structure
and the level of the structure was the same as a consortium or an
advisory panel in other states.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied it varies between states. What he
refers to as a commission is a panel of people that represent
specific areas of expertise. He would like to see a coordinated
effort to use the expertise in the various state agencies and
bring it together at the governor's level so it is possible to
look across the agency boundaries. Other states have a variety of
models for how to proceed.
MILTON WILTSE, Director of Alaska Geological & Geophysical
Surveys, testified via teleconference. They have followed the
legislation for a number of years and are very supportive.
Similar bodies in other states were begun as a consequence of the
1964 earthquake in Alaska. Over the years, there has been
progress in building codes and mitigating various types of
structures to decrease the magnitude of emergency response that
would be necessary after an event. They believe a commission or
panel that will have the view of trying to balance the many
issues that have to be addressed for mitigation of these types of
events is a very good step. It is a complex issue and takes a
balanced panel to bring the various issues and organizations
forward.
To this point, much of the mitigation work that has been done has
been focused in Anchorage, but there are other municipalities
with different types of events that might occur from a seismic
event. This legislation is very encouraging to get a reviewing
body in place.
ROD COMBELLICK, Engineering Geology Chief with the Alaska
Geological & Geophysical Surveys, testified via teleconference.
He has looked at this problem and how other states deal with
their earthquake hazards during his 20 years with the department.
The 1964 Alaskan earthquake is what caused other states, notably
California, to begin their efforts to coordinate their earthquake
hazard mitigation. As a result of those efforts they have saved
many lives and millions to billions of dollars in property
damage.
He just returned from the State Emergency Management Conference
in Anchorage and representatives from Washington, Oregon and
California were present. About a year ago there was a magnitude
6.7 earthquake near Seattle and although it was the same size as
the Northridge earthquake in California in 1994, the damage was
surprisingly minimal. Some is attributed to luck in terms of the
depth of the earthquake and the time of day it occurred, but much
is attributed to the efforts Washington State has taken over the
past ten years. Their seismic safety committee, which is the same
level as the one proposed here, recommended many of the changes
that kept that quake from being devastating. They have instituted
seismic retrofitting of their highways and bridge systems,
instituted more stringent building codes and coordinated the
efforts of state and local governments.
Alaska has gone almost 40 years without any major structural
damage from an earthquake, but this doesn't mean there won't be a
big event that strikes a populated area and exceeds all the
disasters we've had so far. This is something that shouldn't be
ignored. A little over a year ago the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) put out a report that projected state's
annual losses from earthquakes. Alaska ranked number eight with
annual losses in the neighborhood of $42 million or $70.00 per
person. In terms of the annualized cost of earthquakes in
relation to the value of its infrastructure, Alaska ranks number
two and has the distinction of being the only state that does not
have a state level seismic safety commission. This bill would
establish that ability.
There was no further testimony.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted the e-mail from Dr. John L. Aho. Copies
were in members' packets.
He said there was no prepared CS and no amendments were offered.
There were two fiscal notes.
SENATOR HALFORD asked whether there was a sunset review. He
thought the referenced section was the sunset schedule.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said it's not a sunset that would have to be
reviewed by the auditors; it would just have to be reauthorized.
SENATOR STEVENS asked Representative Davies about page 2, lines
29 and 30 that said, "(a) The commission shall (1) recommend
goals and priorities for seismic hazard mitigation to the public
and private sectors;". He asked what some of those
recommendations might entail.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said primarily they would relate to
building codes and practices. Private sector associations of
engineers generally develop building codes. It's important for
the state seismologist to review those recommendations from time
to time because they are primarily made in other states and they
aren't always appropriate for Alaska.
A secondary concern has to do with earthquake insurance. Many
people are priced out of this market because earthquake insurance
in Alaska is set by the experience in Anchorage. It is his hope
that one of the goals of the group would be to rationalize this
type of insurance for Alaska so the price would become affordable
in places where the risk is low.
SENATOR STEVENS referred to the dedicated seats on the commission
and noted there was a seat for industry and insurance but the
seat for a structural or architectural engineer was optional.
[Page 2, lines 11-21] If the commission was going to make
building recommendations for mitigation, it seemed logical to
include more scientists.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied many of the representatives from
the different agencies could be scientists. He singled out
insurance because it is a large and critical piece when there is
a catastrophic event. It's also critical in terms of reducing
hazard. If insurance were to be rationalized over the long term
so that people that move into an area with a higher risk would
pay more, people would look for low risk areas and avoid the
higher risk areas and thus reduce losses. Insurance can play a
central role in hazard mitigation, but it must be done carefully
and over the long term.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT acknowledged that Senator Halford was
correct; section 44.19.635 is the section dealing with
termination of state boards and commissions. If it's not extended
by the cutoff date, it goes into a sunset year. It would be in
the category of boards and commissions that are audited to get a
recommendation of whether they should be extended or not.
He asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR DAVIS made a motion to move CSHB 53(STA) and attached
fiscal notes from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SB 55-PIONEERS' AND VETERANS' HOME/ADVISORY BD
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked Commissioner Duncan to take the witness
stand. He called attention to the letters from the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, Anthony J. Principi. The packets had a
memorandum that didn't go as far as he would have liked, but it
does talk about agreeing to work to find solutions to issues that
existing policies may create for veterans who qualify for
assistance but do not fit within the state administration in
eligibility standards. They would try to work within the
parameter of state statutes with regard to eligibility for living
in the homes and, if necessary, they would develop a waiver or
federal legislation to modify the federal program so funds could
flow to individual veterans living at a home and not directly to
the home.
He explained his proposed CS was drafted so that the name would
not change at this point because they aren't sure the mechanism
will work. The department wanted it put in regulation that 20 or
21 percent of the available beds would be allocated to veterans.
On page 2, lines 17-20 it is made clear that the cap is 21
percent in all the homes together and no more than 30 percent of
the beds in one home may be filled by veterans.
Section 1 comes from the department's original bill. Sections 3-7
are to clean up the original statutes and codify changes in
federal regulations and codes by bringing current statutes up to
date.
JIM DUNCAN, Commissioner of the Department of Administration,
said that since the last hearing on this bill, they have been in
contact with Secretary Principi to get a better definition of how
the demonstration program might work. There is a memorandum of
agreement between Marsha Goodwin, Secretary Principi's designated
contact person, Jim Kohn, director of the Alaska Longevity
Program and John Tabor from the Governor's Office. The memorandum
specifies the parameters of the program, but their discussions
are ongoing. It may require a waiver or a change in federal
statute and regulation; the goal is to address the needs of the
veterans while preserving the ownership and authority of the
state to operate and manage the program.
The following are his comments on the committee substitute (CS):
· Putting the preference in statute is acceptable to the
department. They never intended to exceed the collective
total of 21 percent of the available beds for veterans and
the 30 percent limit in any one home causes no difficulty
either.
· There is still interest in the name change, which was a
part of the original bill. He understood the reason for
deleting it in the CS, but there is interest in pursuing
the change as the legislation moves forward.
· The CS deleted the requirement that one of the two members
of the newly created board would be the chairman of the
Alaska Veterans Advisory Committee (AVAC). Because there
are other options available for AVAC to be represented on
the board that's also workable.
Commissioner Duncan said there was no mention of a study to look
at the unmet needs of veterans in the original bill because last
year that was submitted as a separate item in the Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs budget. They decided it was
preferable to package it with SB 55 so he submitted an amendment
that would authorize a survey of the housing and care needs of
veterans in the state that are not met by the Alaska Pioneers'
and Veterans' Home. The department would report their findings to
the Governor and the Legislature no later than the first day of
the second regular session of the Twenty-Third Alaska State
Legislature. They projected the cost of the study to be
$250,000.00.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted the cost of the study was approximately
one half the cost of a similar study funded by the State of
Washington. He asked whether the results of the study would be
the basis for the state going forward to establish a stand alone
veteran's home or dedicated veteran's wings that could be added
to the homes.
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN wasn't sure what the result would be, but it
would provide an answer as to whether they needed to do something
further to meet the needs of the veterans. The Governor did
submit a certificate of participation request for $4 million in
the deferred maintenance package, which would be the state match
to any federal dollars.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT looked for the original fiscal note.
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN referred him to the revised fiscal note on
the original bill dated 1/15/02.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said in developing the pilot program there is
a request to open the additional beds, but there are about 90
veterans who may qualify for the developing program who currently
reside in the homes.
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN agreed there are 95 veterans in the homes
now.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said the program could be developed in the
hope that the federal (VA) funds become available for the
veterans who currently reside in the homes or the Finance
Committee might also decide to authorize the additional general
fund money to open up some of the additional beds.
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN said the current revenue picture would not
change if the demonstration program came together and an
agreement was made with the VA so that the 95 veterans who are
presently in the Alaska Pioneer Homes could receive veteran's
benefits. That is because the money would flow directly to the
veterans and they would use it to help pay their cost of care. It
would take a general fund appropriation to match the federal
funds for more beds to be opened.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said, "This committee is not tasked with
balancing the checkbook, but there is some benefit to the program
even if we don't have additional money because some of those
veterans who are currently in the homes are paying for their
services out of pocket and they could be getting the VA benefit."
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN agreed.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT called for teleconferenced testimony.
MERILL HAKELA, a Korean War Veteran from Fairbanks, said he
opposed the renaming of the Alaska Pioneer Homes and has
testified against this several times previously. He suggested
converting the Bassett Army Hospital into a stand-alone veteran's
home.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT informed him that the proposed CS dropped the
name change while they worked with the VA on a demonstration
project. They don't want to change the name until they know that
the program would work to everyone's satisfaction. At a minimum,
they want to get VA benefits for those pioneers who are also
veterans and are currently living in the Pioneer Home, but if
they can't work things out with the VA then there would be no
change to the way the homes are operated.
MR. HAKELA reiterated his opposition to the federal government
having any part in the Alaska Pioneer Homes.
HARRY JENKINS from Fairbanks appreciated that the CS dropped the
name change, but was still opposed to the bill. He agreed with
Mr. Hakela that the Bassett Army Hospital could be used for a
stand-alone veteran's home.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT explained the provisions of the proposed
amendment to conduct a study on unmet veterans needs. He said he
looked into converting the Bassett Army Hospital and learned the
new wing is usable, but there are problems with the main
structure.
DON HOOVER asked if he understood correctly that there would be a
$250,000 study.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT explained there would be a study if the
proposed amendment was successful. The larger fiscal note
reflects the cost if additional beds were opened. Roughly half
the cost of opening the additional beds would come from the
general fund. The Finance Committee must decide whether they will
develop a program that benefits veterans that are currently
residing in the homes or open up additional beds for veterans.
There would be a cost to the state treasury if that action were
taken. The total general fund cost to open up about 100
additional beds would be almost $3 million.
SIDE B
MAJOR GENERAL OATES, Adjutant General with the Department of
Military & Veterans Affairs thanked Chairman Therriault and the
committee for their support. He knew that everyone who testified
had the best interests of veterans and pioneers in mind. He
outlined the difficulties associated with renovating the Bassett
Army Hospital.
LADDIE SHAW, Special Assistant in the Office of Veteran Affairs
Department of Military & Veterans Affairs, said he agreed with
General Oates' words of wisdom.
GARY BERRY, American Legion representative, testified in support
of SB 55. He would also like to see an independent and unbiased
study.
CLAYTON LOVE, Disabled American Veterans representative, said he
agreed with Mr. Berry. He emphasized the importance of conducting
the study. "If it does turn out that we can have our stand-alone
veterans home, it would probably eliminate a lot of feuding
between the pioneers and the veterans, which we don't want."
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted the CS and the amendment. He informed
members that it's not unusual to have an appropriation like this
that would be attached to a substantive piece of legislation, but
it would generally be funded as a separate line item in a capital
budget or appropriation bill. If it goes on as part of a fiscal
note, the end of the session approached and the fiscal notes must
be paid for in the operating budget or one of the budget bills.
Finance Committees are generally given a budget into which they
must fit the fiscal notes. Attaching the amendment does not
guarantee funding for the study. The Finance Committee could also
decide that it would be more appropriate as a part of another
appropriation package.
He said he was willing to sponsor the amendment on behalf of the
committee. They could either attach the amendment or recommend
the Finance Committee consider it as a potential capital budget
request item.
SENATOR DAVIS asked what the department's preference was.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT thought the department would like it to be
attached. He asked Commissioner Duncan for the department's
reaction if the Finance Committee zeroed out the fiscal note.
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN said their preference is to attach the
amendment and the fiscal note is necessary for the study to go
forward. They decided to do it this way because they wanted it to
be a program in its entirety. If the bill passed with the
amendment language and there was no appropriation it would create
difficulty for the department because they don't have the money
to do the study. He suggested adding the language that the study
was subject to the appropriation. He thought it was important to
have specific language as to the intent of the $250,000.00 and
that is why they wanted it in this bill.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said they would make a conceptual change and
work with the drafters.
He made a motion to adopt conceptual amendment #1 to the CS with
"subject to appropriation" language.
SENATOR STEVENS asked the Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs to speak to proposed amendment #1.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES said he and Commissioner Duncan have
discussed that and they would expect that the administration of
the home would be through the Department of Administration
because they already have an existing process to manage those
homes. Whether it's part of an Alaskan Pioneer's Home or part of
a stand-alone veteran's home they would still take that approach.
They have also spoken about cooperating in the survey and he
feels they would have a full role in accomplishing that survey.
SENATOR STEVENS said if the Pioneer's Home is administrated by
the Department of Administration now then it sounds as though the
Legislature would be giving them money to study their own
organization.
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN said the Pioneer Home system is currently
administered by the Department of Administration and in statute
they are charged with administering a veteran's home if there
were to be one. The purpose of the study is to study the unmet
needs of veterans to make sure they have proper care and access
to facilities. This would help them determine whether they need
to go to a stand-alone veteran's home or add a wing to an
existing facility to meet the needs of veterans who, for example,
aren't 65 years old.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES added that the survey would be a full
partnership with the Department of Administration and the
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. Their veteran's
service officers and the Veterans Administration would also
participate.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if they would put the survey out to bid so
there would be some sort of independence to address Mr. Berry's
concern or would they be doing the survey in-house.
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN said it is their intent to work with the
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs to put together the
necessary criteria for what they want studied and then go out for
an RFP (request for proposal).
SENATOR STEVENS asked whether they would have members that would
evaluate the RFP.
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN envisioned a steering committee comprised of
representatives from the Department of Administration, the
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs and perhaps other
interested organizations to put together the RFP and the
criteria. Clearly, they would get an independent company to
conduct the study.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES added, "To the extent possible we would also
use the veterans organizations to assist in that data collection
and be part of it, but that could be part of the package as we
put it out to competitive bid."
SENATOR STEVENS went on record to say he hoped they have veterans
involved with the development of the RFP because they know their
needs better than anyone.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES said it was their full intention to do that.
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN added they have done a number of RFPs, they
always put together a steering team with a broad cross section of
individuals, and they would surely involve veterans this time.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said there was a motion to adopt amendment #1
that had been changed conceptually. He noted it was likely that
this would cause a change in title, but that was no problem since
this was the house of origination for the bill.
There being no objection, amendment #1 was adopted.
He noted two fiscal notes. There were no additional amendments.
He asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR DAVIS made a motion to move CSSB 55(STA) and attached
fiscal notes from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
4:45 p.m.
HB 162-ABSENCES UNDER LONGEVITY BONUS PROGRAM
SENATOR THERRIAULT recapped the changes discussed during the
previous hearing on the bill. In Section 1 changing 30 days to 60
days would allow recipients to be gone from the state for a
longer period of time and still receive their check. That would
cost the system about $280,000.00.
He asked for an explanation of the savings.
REPRESENTATIVE GRETCHEN GUESS, bill sponsor, said the savings
comes from moving the unpaid leave from 90 days to five years.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT explained that these individuals would retain
their eligibility, but while they were gone from the state they
would not receive a check. Once they returned to the state they
could start receiving the check again. He asked how much that
would save.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS replied that would save the state
$435,000.00.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he wanted all the savings, but didn't
want the expense. He spoke to Representative Guess about
splitting the difference and going from 30 days to 45 days, which
would cut the expense in half.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said Senator Halford expressed concern about
the five year term and she wasn't sure whether he wanted to
change that or not.
SENATOR HALFORD said the way the fiscal note reads, the bill
saves $147,000.00 but the analysis says that the normal decline
in payments is the savings and the bill costs the state money.
Section 1 looks like it costs an additional $288,000.00.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS agreed.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that is because people are allowed to
travel out of state for a longer period of time and retain their
check.
SENATOR HALFORD said he understood that. He questioned how
Section 2 is supposed to save $435,000.00.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said it's based on the assumption that
people will stay out of state longer and not return to the state
just to keep their eligibility. The decrease is how they
estimated FY03 into the future and keeping the same 10 percent
savings formula but knowing that the payments were decreasing.
There is a decrease in the savings because of the payment
decrease. The savings is a static formula but the payment goes
down 6.7 percent.
SENATOR STEVENS asked whether there was any relationship to the
fact that the program is diminishing each year.
SENATOR HALFORD said that's the cause. He wanted to make sure the
savings was an actual savings without regard to the amount it's
already going down.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said that is what the department has
testified to up to this point.
SENATOR HALFORD then asked how the five year return worked.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS replied now it's 90 days. If someone is off
the role for 90 days, then they are removed completely. This
would change that timeframe to five years. The department set
this term so they could clean up their records.
Individuals may also apply for a one year sabbatical once every
five years.
SENATOR HALFORD said he was concerned about the fiscal
implication of people that have been gone up to five years and
wondered if they could come back and reenroll.
JAMES KOHN, Director of the Division of Alaska Longevity
Programs, said no one has been added to the bonus program since
December 31, 1996 making this a fixed group of people. Some
seniors want to go out of the state for a period of time that
exceeds 90 days in a row or 180 days in a year. However, they
feel they need a cutoff date after which they can be dropped from
the program. At a minimum, the term should be one year, but he
would prefer some time over two years. There are individuals that
go out on mission work and are gone for several years but they
will return because Alaska is their home. He would like to make
it possible for people to leave the state as they wish and that
would save the state money because they wouldn't be paying those
individuals the bonus.
SENATOR HALFORD said he is concerned about the people that have
made the decision to leave in the last four years and seven
months. Could they return and come back into the program and what
would the economic impact be?
MR. KOHN said if someone has been removed from a program under
present law, a change in the law would not allow him or her to
reapply to return to the program.
SENATOR HALFORD asked whether that was clear. He wanted to make
sure this is the case.
MR. KOHN thought there was language that said "from this date
forward." If that language isn't present, then it should be
inserted. It's a good idea to make that clear.
SENATOR HALFORD said he doesn't have as much difficulty going out
three years if it's prospective. He didn't want to open an
unintended window.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked how people could come back if under the
current program they're out if they've been gone 90 days.
MR. KOHN replied there are exemptive reasons for being gone.
Medical reasons and caring for a family member are such
exemptions.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted Ms. Walker's situation as testified to
during the previous hearing.
SENATOR HALFORD made a motion to adopt conceptual amendment 1 to
change the five year term to three years and request language
that makes it clear that it is prospective not retrospective.
There being no objection, amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT made a motion to adopt amendment 2 changing
"60 [30] days" to "45 [30] days" on page 1, line 6.
SENATOR HALFORD asked the age of the youngest people receiving
the bonus.
MR. KOHN said they had to be 65 in 1996 so they would be 73 to 74
years old and they would be in the $100.00 per month bracket. To
be receiving $250.00 per month you would have to be 76 to 77
years old.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said part of his dilemma about dealing with
the program in general is the people that are receiving the bonus
that are newcomers to the state while people who lived in Alaska
since the 1940s didn't qualify because they missed the cut off
date.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said she would like to keep the 60 days but
she appreciates the committee process.
SENATOR DAVIS objected to proposed amendment 2.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for a roll call vote on amendment 2.
The motion failed, three to one with Senators Davis, Stevens,
Halford voting no and Chairman Therriault voting yes.
SENATOR DAVIS made a motion to move SCS HB 162(STA) and attached
fiscal note from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Senate
State Affairs Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|