Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
02/04/2016 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
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 | |
| SB23 | |
| HB226 | |
| HB260 | |
| HB262 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 226 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 262 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 226-EXTEND ALASKA COMMISSION ON AGING
3:19:49 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 226, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Alaska Commission on Aging; and providing for an effective
date."
3:20:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, clarified
that there were now three new fiscal notes. He explained that,
as the Alaska Commission on Aging (ACOA) existed in the State of
Alaska, the qualifications of certain federal statutes for
funding had been met. He reported that ACOA also fulfilled an
obligation and requirement for the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority (AMHTA). He directed attention to the fiscal note,
OMB Component Number 2674, which listed $119,100 under the Fund
Source from MHTAAR (Mental Health Trust Authority Agency
Receipts) as the money contributed by AMHTA to fulfill its
obligations. He shared that the General Fund and I/A Receipts
also listed under the Fund Source were from Department of Health
and Social Services, which had designated ACOA as the agency to
fulfill the federal requirements. He pointed out that there
were now fiscal notes from the Senior and Disabilities Services
Administration, OMB Component Number 2663, showing a receipt of
$603,200 in federal receipts [listed under Fund Source], and
from the Senior Community Based Grants, OMB Component Number
2787, which reflected a federal receipt of $5,771,300 [listed
under Fund Source]. He stated the key point was that "ACOA
serves a real purpose here. By having it, we are able to avail
ourselves of the federal money that's available for the state
for these particular programs." He pointed out that, should
ACOA not be re-authorized, the state would either have to cease
participation in these programs, or designate another state
agency to take its place. He stated that this clarified the
need for three fiscal notes, the exact role of ACOA, and that it
satisfied requirements from the federal government for Alaska to
receive money for senior benefits and requirements from AMHTA to
satisfy its obligations. He declared that ACOA served a good
purpose, and there was great leverage from the general funds
invested in these services.
3:25:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked about the interplay between the
three fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER reiterated that all three fiscal notes
defined allocations in the various budgets which appropriated
money and provided a fund source for this money. He directed
attention to the Allocation on each fiscal note, which was "the
most granular level within the budget where this money is
appropriated as both an expenditure and we provide a fund source
for it." He pointed to the Appropriation, which he explained
was the next tier of the budget, and was within the Department,
listed just above it. He shared that, although all three fiscal
notes were appropriated into the Senior and Disabilities
Services, the allocations were to different areas, hence the
need for three separate fiscal notes. He explained that, with
the passage of any bill with an attached fiscal note, this
fiscal note was added to the budget through an appropriation
that identified the specific fiscal note. He pointed out that,
as this was a reauthorization bill, the money was already in the
current budget, but would disappear without reauthorization of
the agency, a consequence should proposed HB 226 not be passed.
He clarified that should that happen, the money would not be
spent or received, which was reflected in the fiscal notes. He
stated that the policy call was for whether there was sufficient
value and merit from this agency and its activities.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ directed attention to the fiscal note
labeled OMB Component Number 2663, and asked about the nature of
the services for $520,300 listed under Operating Expenditures.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER referenced the back page of the fiscal
note, noting that it explained the services in general, although
a very specific explanation would come from the agency.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the fiscal note OMB Component Number
2674 had been updated on 02/04/16.
3:32:06 PM
DUANE MAYES, Director, Central Office, Division of Senior and
Disabilities Services, Department of Health and Social Services,
in response to Representative Vazquez, said that this money was
for two reimbursable services agreements (RSAs), one to the Long
Term Care Ombudsman in the Department of Revenue and the other
to the Alaska Commission on Aging.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ offered her belief that funds to the
Alaska Commission on Aging would be through Personal Services,
under Operating Expenditures in the aforementioned fiscal note.
MR. MAYES relayed that he was unsure why these Services had not
been included under Personal Services on the fiscal note.
3:34:26 PM
JACQUELLI ZIEGENFUSS, Administration Operations Manager, Central
Office, Division of Senior and Disabilities Services, Department
of Health and Social Services, explained that RSAs were paid
from the Services line, which included any passage of funds onto
another state agency.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked why the funding to the Alaska
Commission on Aging was not on the Personal Services line,
instead of the Services line.
MS. ZIEGENFUSS directed attention to the fiscal note OMB
Component Number 2663 and explained that those funds go out
through the Services line and then, on fiscal note OMB Component
Number 2674, move into the Personal Services line for the Alaska
Commission on Aging. She directed attention to page 2, final
paragraph, of the aforementioned fiscal note, which stated that
the commission was funded in part by an RSA from the Senior and
Disabilities Services Administration component, while a small
portion of this was federal funding.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether the Alaska Commission on
Aging was funded through the Personal Services on fiscal note
OMB Component Number 2663 and then additionally through an RSA
from the Senior and Disabilities Services Administration.
MS. ZIEGENFUSS directed attention to Fund Source, I/A Receipts
(interagency receipts) on the fiscal note OMB Component Number
2674, which helped fund the Personal Services under Operating
Expenditures. She stated that these funds, $348,100, were used
for the expenditure of personal services.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if this money was received from the
Senior and Disabilities Services Administration.
MS. ZIEGENFUSS stated her agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if the other dollars not reflected in
the fiscal notes were awarded through a competitive grant
process, and what evaluation process was used to ensure that the
money was distributed "to the best places."
3:38:38 PM
LISA MORLEY, DSDS Grants, Central Office, Division of Senior and
Disabilities Services, Department of Health and Social Services,
explained that the other funds not accounted for in the fiscal
note were distributed directly from the Administration on
Community Living, part of the Older Americans Act. The funds
identified in this fiscal note were from Title III, and were a
combination of funds for grants and services directly to
seniors, the Long Term Care Ombudsman, the Alaska Commission on
Aging, and administration. She stated that Title IV funds were
discretionary and competitive, and that the State of Alaska was
not currently receiving any of these funds. She explained that
Title V funds were for workforce for seniors, and were
distributed to the Department of Labor & Workforce Development.
She relayed that Title VI funds were awarded directly to the
tribal governments, about $4 million during the past year. She
concluded with the Title VII funds which were awarded to the
Long Term Care Ombudsman in the Department of Revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked where the public could look at the
list of grantees.
MS. MORLEY asked if the reference was for grantees receiving
funds to provide direct services in Alaska or those who receive
Title III funds.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked about any grantees receiving grants
from the Division of Senior and Disabilities Services.
MS. MORLEY replied that these were online in an operating grants
book, which listed every grant funded program by region and by
grantee, and included the dollar amounts. She offered her
belief that this was listed under the Department of Health and
Social Services, Finance and Management Services. She offered
to provide the link.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked for how long the Older Americans Act
was reauthorized relative to the longevity of the funds.
MS. MORLEY replied that she did not recall.
MR. MAYES said that he would supply the information.
There being no further objection, the amended fiscal notes were
adopted.
3:42:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report HB 226, Version 29-
LS1089\A, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying amended fiscal notes. There being no
objection, HB 226 was moved from the House Health and Social
Services Standing Committee.