Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
03/22/2024 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB219 | |
| HB115 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 219
"An Act repealing the assistive technology loan
guarantee and interest subsidy program; and providing
for an effective date."
1:38:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER, SPONSOR, introduced the bill.
He stated that one of the best things about living in
Alaska were the great people who had big hearts and a
willingness to help every Alaskan enjoy life in the state
to the maximum, including individuals experiencing physical
or mental disabilities. For example, in 1995 the state
sought and received a $500,000 grant aimed at backing loans
for individuals with disabilities. He detailed that the
loans helped people buy assistive technology (AT) to help
them get or keep a job, attend school, or live more
independently. He provided examples of AT including
wheelchairs, computers, sleep synthesizers, prosthetics,
hearing aids, and other communication devices. The
legislature had established the Assistive Technology Loan
Guarantee Fund intended to guarantee the principal amount
of the loans to Alaskans in order to purchase AT. He noted
the funds could also be used to subsidize interest rates.
He relayed that despite the legislature's good intentions,
few people had taken advantage of the program. The intent
of HB 219 was to repeal the grant fund and direct the fund
balance of approximately $460,000 to the Assistive
Technology of Alaska (ATLA), a nonprofit empowered to
administer the grants. He explained that the repeal of the
underlying statute would only happen if the legislature
reappropriated the funds through separate legislation. He
believed members' bill packets included the draft language.
He elaborated that passing HB 219 to repeal AS 23.15.125
would remove outdated statutory barriers that were keeping
Alaskans with disabilities from taking advantage of the
funds. He noted his staff was available to review the
sectional analysis.
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from Representative Saddler's
staff.
1:40:22 PM
MELODIE WILTERDINK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), offered the sectional
analysis of the bill (copy on file):
Section 1 Page 1, Line 4
Section 1 repeals AS 23.15.125 the assistive
technology loan guarantee and interest subsidy program
which established the "assistive technology loan
guarantee fund." The fund can be used to guarantee the
principal amount or subsidize the interest rate of a
loan for purchasing assistive technology that enables
an individual to obtain or maintain employment or live
more independently.
Section 2 Page 1, Lines 5-9
Section 2 adds conditional language to Alaska's
uncodified law stipulating that this act only takes
effect if the Legislature reappropriates the balance
of the assistive technology loan fund for the purpose
of improving access to assistive technology.
Section 3 Page 1, Line 10
Section 3 provides for an immediate effective date.
Co-Chair Foster observed that the law would only take
effect if the legislature reappropriated the balance of the
AT fund. He asked if the adjustment was something that
would happen at the very end of session when bills were
rolled into the conference committee. Alternatively, he
wondered if the operating budget co-chair needed to do
something in the meantime.
Ms. Wilterdink responded that there was drafted language
and the amendment to the operating budget could happen in
the House Finance Committee during the budget amendment
process, on the House floor, or at a later time during
conference committee. She noted that ideally the change
would take place prior to conference committee.
1:43:16 PM
Representative Josephson asked how the fund avoided being
swept over the past several years.
Representative Saddler deferred the question to the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD).
DUANE MAYES, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL
REHABILITATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), replied that he did not
have the details to answer the question. He relayed that
the funding had been a one-time allocation to the Division
of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) in 1995. He offered to
follow up with the information.
Representative Saddler speculated that the fact that the
funding was still available 30 years after the
establishment of the fund was some indication it had found
a niche to be safe from the sweep.
Co-Chair Foster suggested a follow-up on the question with
the information to be provided at the next hearing on the
bill.
Representative Hannan asked how much money was available in
the fund. She understood the fund had initially been
capitalized with federal money and $100,000 had been put in
a couple of years later. She remarked that the fiscal note
did not address how much money would be reappropriated. She
asked if none of the money had ever been spent and if it
earned interest in the fund.
Representative Saddler deferred to Mr. Mayes.
Mr. Mayes responded that the current balance of the fund
was $447,000. He estimated that over the 30-year life of
the fund, around 10 loans had been provided. He relayed
that there had been no loans in the past six years.
Representative Saddler added that there had been a period
of very low interest rates and because part of the aim of
the federal grant money was to subside loans it was rather
difficult to find a way in which a subsidy was much of a
benefit. He stated it was one of the reasons the loan
program had been moribund.
Representative Hannan asked if there were any restrictions
on reappropriation tied to the initial $291,000 in federal
funds.
Representative Saddler deferred the question to Mr. Mayes.
He believed there were some restrictions.
Mr. Mayes answered that ATLA was the implementing agency
and store front in terms of technology. There were no
restrictions on the funds. The change in statute would
enable the state to allocate the funding to ATLA, which was
better positioned to promote the program and the funds. The
department had been talking with its federal funding
partner and there were many other states that had done the
same thing because they were experiencing the same thing as
Alaska.
1:49:09 PM
Representative Hannan provided a hypothetical scenario
where the legislature wanted to move the initial amount
that was capitalized and to reappropriate $100,000 to
senior and disability services technology. She asked if the
scenario would be allowed. She noted the reappropriation in
the scenario would be a different action from the bill. She
wondered whether the legislature could only reappropriate
the funds to one thing or if it had carte blanche through
its appropriation power to put the funds towards any
disability services.
Mr. Mayes responded that ATLA was the implementing agency
that DLWD worked with. The department's Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation had a set of rehabilitation
counselors who may use ATLA to assess technology needs.
There was no other entity in the state that he was aware
of. He explained that ATLA was federally recognized under
the 21st Century Assistive Technology Act.
Representative Saddler added that it was his understanding
that with funds established through law, often the lender
specified the fund balance included original appropriation
plus earnings. He would look into HB 65, the 1995 vehicle
that established the fund.
Co-Chair Foster thought it was a good question asked by
Representative Hannan about whether $100,000 could be
reappropriated to another program. He would be happy with a
simple yes or no answer.
Representative Galvin thanked Representative Saddler for
finding money that was not being spent and was meant to be
spent on behalf of individuals who need the funds. She
referenced support letters included in members' packets
(copy on file). She looked at language specifying that ATLA
remained one of the only nonprofits to provide services to
all Alaskans regardless of age, location, income, or
diagnosis. She stated that the language "one of the only"
made her wonder if there were others. She asked if there
had been a process in which the department had chosen to
focus on ATLA.
Representative Saddler asked which letter and location she
was referencing.
Representative Galvin referred to paragraph three of a
letter from the Association of Assistive Technology Act
(copy on file). She noted that the sentence was in a couple
of the letters. She referenced a letter from Articulate
Speech and Language Therapy (copy on file) as another
example.
Representative Saddler responded that ATLA and DVR had made
him aware of the issue and had suggested the bill. He
believed ATLA was one of a few nonprofits providing the
services, but ATLA was the primary entity with the most
experience and efficacy. He thought ATLA was the only
agency that had every facilitated the grants. He concluded
that ATLA was in the best position and best nonprofit
available to deliver the money to people who need it. He
deferred to the executive director of ATLA to answer if
there were other agencies that may qualify.
1:54:42 PM
MYSTIE RAIL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY OF
ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), answered that ATLA
was the only agency in the state dealing with assistive
technology and it was the implementing agency of the
federal AT Act.
Representative Galvin stated that all of her questions were
answered if the grant was single sourced toward only one
purpose.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Mr. Mayes was listed as invited
testimony. He asked if Mr. Mayes had additional comments.
Mr. Mayes shared that he had worked in the state system for
35 years. He started out in 1989 as the rehabilitation
counselor for the deaf and hard of hearing and had worked
in the position for nine years. He relayed that ATLA was
with him at the time, and he often used the agency to
identify technology needs for deaf, blind, or hard of
hearing. He relayed that with the exception of senior and
disability services and the Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education, ATLA was the sole
agency the rehabilitation counselors worked for. He relayed
that the skill set counselors needed to have was
complicated and it was rare to find someone with that level
of skill. He stated that ATLA had been around for a long
time and was the lifeline for DVR.
1:57:17 PM
Representative Hannan remarked that DVR had previously had
an assistive program to help deaf individuals, but it no
longer existed. She wondered if some of the funding could
be used to reinstate such a program. Alternatively, she
wondered if the funding was constrained and could not be
used for that purpose.
Mr. Mayes deferred the question to Ms. Rail.
Ms. Rail responded that she was not aware of the specific
program that had previously existed under DVR. She relayed
that ATLA was a community rehabilitation provider for the
division. She explained that the division counselors
referred individuals to ATLA for a full assessment and to
provide recommendations on the right assistive technology.
Representative Hannan shared that she had some active deaf
constituents who had repeatedly told her they used to have
supports at DVR, but the programs had been cut. She
elaborated that they found it very hard to find access to
services and supports within state agencies to interact
with state agencies. She explained that the individuals
continually asked when the positions could be reinstated.
She was trying to determine whether the funding could only
be directed to individuals or if it could be used to
provide a deaf assistance person at the division that deaf
Alaskans could contact for a variety of supports.
Co-Chair Foster thought it sounded like some research and
follow up was needed.
Representative Saddler stated that he had some difficulty
understanding Ms. Rail possibly due to speakerphone. He
believed Ms. Rail had said that if someone was referred to
ATLA, the agency would conduct an assessment of the
person's disabilities and would be able to help provide
assistive technology if a person was deaf or hard of
hearing.
2:01:07 PM
Ms. Rail agreed. She detailed that ATLA provided AT and the
associated services. The agency had additional programs it
was able to administer to provide specific types of devices
for deaf or hard of hearing individuals and individuals
experiencing speech impairment. She speculated that the
constituents that Representative Hannan was speaking of
were likely looking for services beyond assistive
technology and the services provided by ATLA. She explained
that ATLA was very focused on providing AT and the
surrounding services.
Co-Chair Foster asked Ms. Rail to provide any comments as
an invited testifier.
Ms. Rail shared that ATLA had become a 501(c)(3) in 1994
and the implementing agency of the federal Assistive
Technology Act under the direction of DVR. She noted that
the federal funds went directly to DVR and were passed on
to ATLA. The agency's mission was to enhance the quality of
life for Alaskans through assistive technology. She relayed
that ATLA was the state's only comprehensive assistive
technology resource center that provided services statewide
to Alaskans at any age with any disability, injury, or
illness. She noted that most other nonprofits were specific
to certain ages, disabilities, or areas within the state.
She explained that ATLA partnered with all of those
agencies.
Ms. Rail supported the activities outline in the Assistive
Technology Act. She detailed that assistive technology was
defined as any item, piece of equipment, software program,
or product system used to increase, maintain, or improve
the functional capabilities of people with disabilities.
She explained that AT could be as simple and low tech as
putting rubberized grips on a pen for a person experiencing
arthritis or as high tech as a device called Eyegaze that
enabled a person to control a computer or iPad using only
their eyes. She elaborated that AT could range from
solutions made ourselves to specialized equipment from AT
manufacturers to everyday off-the-shelf devices like an
iPad or Amazon's Alexa. She stressed that AT was not a one
size fits all solution. She relayed that devices and
services were unique to each person ATLA worked with. She
provided examples of individuals receiving assistance
through ATLA. She highlighted an elder in rural Alaska who
was losing his vision and was now able to read his own mail
with the assistance of a digital magnifier. Another example
was a non-verbal six-year-old with autism in Ketchikan who
had recently told her mom "thank you" for the first time
using a symbol-based communication device.
Ms. Rail stated that AT devices and services were critical
to ensure Alaskans with disabilities were able to live,
work, and participate in their communities independently.
2:06:27 PM
Ms. Rail continued to provide details about ATLA. She
relayed that as the implementing agency of the Assistive
Technology Act, ATLA provided demonstrations of the devices
to offer opportunities for Alaskans to become familiar with
the different types of technology that could help them. She
explained that it offered Alaskans a chance to compare and
contrast the functions and features of each device through
hands-on exploration by an AT professional. The agency also
allowed individuals to borrow equipment for two to four
weeks to determine whether the item would meet their needs
prior to purchase. The agency also supported the reuse of
AT in order for multiple people to benefit from a device.
The AT Act did not allow ATLA to purchase technology
directly for a person, but it allowed ATLA to do state
financing activities to administer other initiatives for
funding resources that did support the acquisition of the
AT for consumers at no cost using dollars from non-AT Act
sources. The agency also used AT Act dollars to provide
outreach and awareness and to collaborate with partner
agencies across the state. The intent of HB 219 would be to
support the activities already provided by ATLA through the
AT Act.
Ms. Rail stressed that technology was rapidly changing as
were the needs of Alaskans served by the agency. She stated
that the funds received by the agency through the AT Act
did not begin to cover the need to purchase more AT for
demonstration centers or to be able to provide short-term
loans. She stated that the funds [that would result from HB
219] would ensure ATLA could meet the increased urgency for
AT and to help improve and continue to improve the quality
of life for Alaskans with disabilities. The additional
funds would also strengthen and sustain the gaps in
services or in devices that were needed to support
Alaskans. She thanked the committee for the opportunity to
speak.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Ms. Rail for her testimony. He
asked Representative Saddler for any closing comments.
2:09:30 PM
Representative Saddler thanked the committee and was
available for questions.
Representative Tomaszewski asked if the fund had collected
any interest over its 30-year lifespan.
Representative Saddler deferred the question to Mr. Mayes.
Mr. Mayes confirmed that there was some interest made on
the funding, but he did not have the specific numbers on
hand. He would follow up with the information.
Co-Chair Foster set the amendment deadline for Friday,
March 29 at 5:00 p.m.
HB 219 was HEARD and HELD for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 219 Sponsor Statement 2.6.24.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2024 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/1/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 219 |
| HB 219 Sectional Analysis ver B 2.6.24.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2024 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/1/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 219 |
| HB219 NEW FN DOLWD-SP-03-15-24.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 219 |
| HB 219 Public Testimony Rec’d by 3.18.24.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 219 |
| HB 219 Responses to HFIN Questions 3.22.24.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 219 |
| HB 115 Additional Authorities and Responsibilities 4.3.24.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB 115 Follow Up Answers from 3.22.24 (FIN) Mtg..pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB 115 Public Testimony Rec'd by 040424.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB 115 Public Testimony Rec'd by 041724.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |