Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/02/2024 10:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB196 | |
| HB223 | |
| HB119 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 196 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 223 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 196
"An Act relating to the supplemental nutrition
assistance program; and providing for an effective
date."
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee would hear
fiscal notes for the bill.
4:17:26 PM
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, went through the fiscal impact note by the
Department of Health (DOH) with control code OVeDm. The
fiscal note stated that the addition of a new position
within DOH would cost $138,000 in the initial year and
$135,000 in subsequent years. She explained that half of
the funding would come from federal receipts and half would
come from the general fund. The department recognized that
implementing the broad-based categorical eligibility had
many additional requirements for compliance, largely
associated with the dual eligibility with the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which would
necessitate an additional employee.
Representative Stapp understood that previous testifiers
had stated that the bill would save the department money,
but he did not see the savings reflected in the fiscal
note. He asked why the existing quality control employee
would not simply take on the new duties required by the
bill.
Ms. Enright deferred the question to her colleague.
4:19:04 PM
DEB ETHERIDGE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (via teleconference), replied that the
fiscal notes reflected non-cash TANF benefits, for which
DOH was responsible. She noted that there was an obvious
deficit and the Division of Public Assistance (DPS)
experienced internal struggles around its internal case
review. The division was requesting an additional position
to ensure that it could effectively administer the food
TANF program.
Representative Stapp asked if it was the department's view
that the bill would save time. The fiscal note stated that
households must complete a staff application, interview,
provide financial processes, report documents, and reapply
regularly. He asked whether the department anticipated any
changes in productivity due to the expected increased
volume. He did not see any information in the fiscal note
that stated that the number of eligibility technicians
would be decreased.
Ms. Etheridge responded that the fiscal note did not
reflect the delays and additional work required to do a
verification of assets. The Division of Public Assistance
(DPA) would often need to "pend" the cases, which meant
that the case would need to be reevaluated when additional
information was available. The division sometimes received
partial information, which meant the case had to be pended
for a longer period of time. The process was more time-
consuming when the department had to complete verification
requests for assets. She explained that removing the asset
requirement helped the division process cases faster. The
division anticipated receiving additional applications for
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
because the federal poverty level (FPL) would increase,
which would increase the number of individuals who were
eligible for benefits.
Representative Stapp understood that on top of the FPL was
the 200 percent requirement broad-based category
eligibility. He asked if the percentage could be altered.
Ms. Etheridge responded that 200 percent was the
requirement. She would confirm the information.
4:22:52 PM
Representative Hannan asked if there would be a decline in
benefits if an individual increased their FPL.
Ms. Etheridge responded in the affirmative. She had
recently testified on the boundaries of the eligibility
requirements. As an individual's income increased, the
benefits decreased.
Representative Hannan recalled that one level of benefits
might be $36 a month, which would mean that an individual
who was at the 200 percent above poverty eligibility level
might receive less than $50 in benefits.
Ms. Etheridge replied that $36 was the amount for a single
individual in an urban area. There were three categories of
eligibility: urban, rural one, and rural two.
4:24:21 PM
KATY GIORGIO, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GENEVIEVE MINA,
responded that 200 percent was not a requirement, and a
different number could be chosen. There were a range of
upper poverty limits that states used and the federal
government allowed Alaska to independently shape its SNAP
program. She noted that most states had chosen 200 percent.
Representative Galvin understood that 42 states had decided
on 200 percent. She asked if she was correct.
Ms. Giorgio responded that she had a chart from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that detailed the
specifics for each state. She relayed that 42 states and
territories had adopted broad-based categorical eligibility
in some form. Every state administered the program slightly
differently.
Ms. Enright relayed that there was an additional fiscal
impact note from DOH with the control code vOQPI. The
fiscal note detailed that an additional position would cost
an initial $141,000 and would cost $138,000 in subsequent
fiscal years. The cost would be split equally between
federal receipts and a general fund match. The position
would be in the training unit and would help integrate the
categorical eligibility category into the suite of other
assistance programs.
4:26:56 PM
Representative Galvin asked if there had been any work done
to ascertain how much extra money would be coming into the
state through the grocery stores that would be seeing a lot
more traffic. She understood that people would be going
into grocery stores instead of food banks. She asked if
there had been any research on the potential impacts.
Ms. Enright responded that the department did not have an
estimate, but she would follow up.
Ms. Giorgio responded that she did not have an estimate as
to how many SNAP dollars might flow into Alaska, but every
SNAP dollar in Alaska generated about $1.70 in economic
activity. She relayed that there were a high number of SNAP
recipients predominantly in rural areas and the SNAP
dollars were spent in local grocery stores, which had
downstream effects on the local economy. She viewed SNAP as
an economic driver.
Representative Galvin asked how many dollars were currently
spent through SNAP.
Ms. Giorgio did not have the information.
Ms. Enright also did not have the information.
Representative Galvin asked the if total spend was $1
million or $2 million or was it in the tens of millions.
Ms. Etheridge responded that she did not have the
information forecasted within DPA, but she could follow up
with an estimate. She explained that the program was a
federal pass-through benefit.
4:29:24 PM
Representative Stapp asked why the fiscal note indicated
that the employee would be needed through 2030 if the
program only required a temporary change in the software.
Ms. Enright responded that turnover was normal for many
departments, and she wanted the fiscal note to reflect the
expectation that new employees would continue to train on
the broad-based categorical eligibility for many years into
the future.
Representative Stapp assumed that the division had to train
employees already and wondered why another employee needed
to be added for training purposes.
Ms. Etheridge responded that the role included non-cast
TANF benefits-related duties. The work was provided to
individuals who were receiving or eligible for broad-based
categorical eligibility. The work could include brochures
or training. There was an entire body of work that was
associated with the implementation of broad-based
categorical eligibility and the new employee would be
tasked with the work.
Representative Stapp commented that he kept hearing that
there was significant work that would need to be done if
the bill were to pass.
Representative Tomaszewski noted that the commodities line
in the fiscal note showed a $4,000 appropriation in FY 25,
but in the analysis, it was referred to as a $40,000
appropriation. He asked if it was $4,000 or $40,000.
Ms. Enright responded that it was a typo and it was meant
to be $4,000 and not $40,000.
Representative Tomaszewski asked if the federal poverty
guidelines spreadsheet had been distributed to committee
members.
Ms. Giorgio responded that she sent the spreadsheet to
committee staff in the morning, but she would follow up to
make sure it was distributed.
4:33:03 PM
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for Tuesday, May
7 at 5:00 p.m.
HB 196 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
4:33:20 PM