Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/13/2024 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 | |
| HB400 | |
| SB205 | |
| SB170 | |
| SB259 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 400 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 275 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 99 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 149 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 196 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 204 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 397 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 396 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 170(FIN)
"An Act relating to the Alaska longevity bonus program
and the Alaska senior benefits payment program; and
providing for an effective date."
10:27:42 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted the bill had been heard previously
[April 12, 2024].
SENATOR SCOTT KAWASAKI, SPONSOR, reviewed the bill. He
recapped that SB 170 would extend the Senior Benefits
Program indefinitely. The program aids over 10,000 Alaskans
aged 65 and older with incomes at 75, 100, and 175 percent
of the federal poverty level. The assistance can range from
$76.00 to $250.00 a month for eligible seniors. He
mentioned how many seniors benefitted in various regions of
the state. He noted that the program had historical and
current bipartisan support.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
10:30:12 AM
Co-Chair Foster requested a review of the fiscal notes.
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH. She discussed the fiscal notes. She turned to the
Department of Health (DOH) (FN1 (DOH) fiscal note allocated
to the Senior Benefits Payment Program dated January 1,
2024. The projected total senior benefit expenditure for
the next fiscal year was $23,542.3 million and increased by
one percent in the outyears.
10:31:05 AM
Co-Chair Foster moved to amendments.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. Section 4, ch. 1, FSSLA 2007, as
amended by sec. 5, ch. 6, SLA 2011, sec. 1, ch.
113, SLA 2014, and sec. 1, ch. 8, SLA 2018, is
amended to read:
Sec. 4. AS 09.38.015(a)(11); AS 47.45.301,
47.45.302, 47.45.304, 47.45.306, 47.45.308, and
47.45.309 are repealed June 30, 2029 [2024]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, lines 10 - 11:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Stapp discussed the amendment. He explained
that the amendment added a sunset provision back into the
bill. The payments were in fixed amounts and a future
legislature might want to revisit the issue due to factors
like inflation or to make changes to the program.
Representative Josephson asked why he selected some of the
date references and not others. He asked for clarity.
Representative Stapp explained it was how Legislative Legal
drafted the amendment. He assumed it applied to the
entirety of the bill.
Representative Josephson asked for the sponsor's opinion of
the amendment. Senator Kawasaki replied that the current
legislation had been in effect and unchanged since 2007.
The fiscal note reflected increments in the outyears to
allow a larger number of seniors coverage. The Senate
Finance Committee eliminated the sunset date via amendment.
He thought that whether to add it back was the committee's
decision.
Representative Hannan cited Senator Kawasaki statement that
the current program was unchanged since 2007. She wondered
if the payouts had not changed or just the eligibility.
Senator Kawasaki answered that the program had not changed
since 2007, but the income limits were adjusted annually
through regulation. Representative Hannan reiterated her
question regarding the monthly payouts. Senator Kawasaki
replied that it depended on the number of enrollees, but
the underlying bill and regulations had not changed since
2007.
GRIFFEN SUKKAEW, STAFF, SENATOR SCOTT KAWASAKI, added that
the payout levels were subject to legislative
appropriation.
10:36:10 AM
Representative Ortiz asked if the current sunset date was
the first time there had been one. Senator Kawasaki
answered that there had been sunsets since the program's
inception in the 1970s. He deferred to the will of the
committee regarding the amendment.
Representative Coulombe asked why Representative Stapp
chose 2029. Representative Stapp answered that the date did
not matter to him. He considered the high inflation rate
over the prior 3 years and chose a 5 year sunset. The
program had always had a sunset date. He did not believe
the legislature would reconsider a program due to inflation
if a sunset was not included in the program. The current
fixed amounts in the bill might want to be readjusted in
the future.
10:38:34 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon thought there was an adjustment due to
regulation and changing federal poverty guidelines. He
deduced that it would be adjusted over time moving forward.
Representative Ortiz asked what action was taken in the
prior committee. Senator Kawasaki replied that the Senate
Finance Committee had removed the sunset completely. He
delineated that there was a 2 percent escalator in the
fiscal note and the historical 2 percent increase was
already in statute.
Representative Galvin understood that there may be
fluctuation in terms of percentages of household income,
but the amount of the payout was not changing over the
years. Senator Kawasaki pointed to a fact sheet document in
members files ["Senior Benefits Program - Information and
Fact Sheet" updated January 2024, DOH] (copy on file) that
showed examples of the payout changing due to changes in
the federal poverty guidelines. In addition, on page 3 the
total number of recipients had changed over time and
actually decreased in 2022. He felt that the underlying
policy was that senior benefits remained available when
seniors needed them.
10:41:35 AM
Representative Galvin strongly supported the program and
bill. She wanted to understand the reason for the proposed
amendment. She wondered whether it was warranted to examine
the issue again in five years to determine if the monthly
payment amount was sufficient or if it needed an upward
adjustment. She wanted to understand the mechanism of the
program and how the payout was calculated. She wondered if
the payout was something that the legislature adjusted.
Senator Kawasaki stated the program was in place and
budgeted annually based on prior annual numbers. He
believed that the adjustments were already built in.
10:42:55 AM
Representative Stapp provided wrap up for the amendment. He
cited the sponsor statement related to the fixed amount and
read the following:
Subject to appropriation from the Alaska State
Legislature, assistance can range from $76 to $250 a
month for eligible seniors.
Representative Stapp elaborated that the 2 percent
projected growth noted in the fiscal note was due to
Alaska's aging population. In addition, regarding the
federal poverty limit, the qualification adjusts at the
federal guidelines. Therefore, more or less seniors would
be eligible for benefits, but the amounts of payout do not
change unless the legislature changes the appropriation. He
reiterated that the purpose of the sunset amendment was
that the program always had a sunset and if any member
believed that the amount of $76.00 to $250.00 was adequate
to the end of time, then he advised not to vote for the
amendment. He believed that the legislature would never
revisit the bill without a sunset. He favored a sunset
every 5 or 6 years to encourage consideration of
legislative changes to the program.
10:44:14 AM
Representative Josephson maintained the objection.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Coulombe, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Cronk, Foster
OPPOSED: Hannan, Ortiz, Josephson, Galvin, Edgmon
Failed 5/5
Co-Chair Johnson was absent from the vote.
Co-Chair Foster RECESSED the meeting to a call of the
chair.
10:45:57 AM
RECESSED
12:01:40 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee had left off on
considering Amendment 2 for SB 170.
12:02:14 PM
Representative Hannan MOVED Amendment 2 to SB 170:
Page 1, line 2, following "program;":
Insert "relating to the supplemental nutrition
assistance program;"
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 47.25.980(a) is amended to read:
(a) The department shall
(1) adopt regulations necessary to carry out the
food stamp program;
(2) cooperate with the federal government and do
all things necessary to continue state
eligibility under the food stamp program;
(3) comply with the requirements of 7 U.S.C.
2011 - 2036d (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program), implement categorical eligibility under
7 U.S.C. 2014(a), and make eligible an individual
whose household income is not more than 200
percent of the federal poverty guideline
regardless of the value of assets owned by the
household [7 U.S.C. 2011 - 2036 (FOOD STAMP
PROGRAM)];
(4) establish an electronic application for the
food stamp program and allow an applicant to
submit an application in electronic format or in
other formats required by state and federal law;
the electronic application must inform an
applicant that a false statement made on the
application will be investigated and is
punishable under AS 11.56.210; in this paragraph,
"electronic application" means an application for
benefits or renewal of benefits, whether the
department exclusively administers the benefits
or administers the benefits in coordination with
another state agency or federal agency,
electronically completed and submitted through
the department's Internet website."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 7. Section 4 of this Act takes effect July 1,
2025.
* Sec. 8. Except as provided in sec. 7 of this Act,
this Act takes effect immediately under AS
01.10.070(c)."
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Representative Hannan explained that the amendment would
add HB 196 (Food Stamp Program Eligibilty) to SB 170. The
bill had two prior hearings [May 1, 2024 and May 2, 2024]
in the House Finance Committee. She believed that it was
the stage in session when efficiency measures were
necessary. The legislation would expand the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and help feed Alaskans
by broadening broad based categorical eligibility. The
program would help elevate people out of poverty and was a
federal flexibility that was adopted in 42 states and 2
territories. She explained that the amendment allowed the
state to increase income limits from 130 percent of poverty
to 200 percent of the poverty limit. However, it was not
mandating an increase to 200 percent, but it allowed for
expansion and the development of new regulations to expand
up to 200 percent. In addition, it allowed the state to
waive the asset test, which aided disqualification via
ownership of vehicles, etc. The amendment would also allow
the state to phase down eligibility for working families as
their economic status increases. She reported that SNAP was
an economic driver in rural communities since, every dollar
spent on SNAP generated $1.70 in communities. The bill
increased the administrative burden and had the potential
to save the state money.
12:04:50 PM
Representative Stapp MOVED Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2.
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. Section 4, ch. 1, FSSLA 2007, as amended by
sec. 5, ch. 6, SLA 2011, sec. 1, ch. 113, SLA 2014,
and sec. 1, ch. 8, SLA 2018, is amended to read:
Sec. 4. AS 09.38.015(a)(11); AS 47.45.301, 47.45.302,
47.45.304, 47.45.306, 47.45.308, and 47.45.309 are
repealed June 30, 2029 [2024]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, lines 10 - 11:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Representative Hannan OBJECTED.
Representative Stapp explained that conceptual Amendment 1
would reduce the 200 percent of the federal poverty limit
to 150 percent. He stated that there were many reasons why
he thought it was a wise decision, but he had questions for
the department. He asked whether the department could
determine how many new individuals would become eligible
with the poverty limit increased.
12:06:04 PM
DEB ETHERIDGE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DOH) (via teleconference), responded
that projecting the number of individuals who would apply
and take advantage of the SNAP program at 200 percent was
complex. She discerned that approximately 11.5 percent of
Alaskans were under 100 percent of the federal poverty
level, and 13.6 percent were between 100 percent and 199
percent of the poverty level. She disclosed that the
statistics were from the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2024.
Representative Stapp asked if there was a specific number
rather than a percentage she could offer. He calculated
that it was roughly 10 thousand Alaskans. Ms. Etheridge
answered that the number sounded correct. She added that
the preliminary numbers of individuals in the SNAP program
in March 2024 was 77,197. Representative Stapp thought that
the asset test reduction was a good thing and it made the
department's processing more efficient. He feared that
there could be an increase of 10,000 applicants. He
inquired as to how many applications were part of the
departments second backlog. Ms. Etheridge replied that
[audio cut out] the backlog was a little over 8,000
individuals but she was not the director at the time.
Representative Stapp understood that the bill did not
require the department to adopt the entire 200 percent of
the poverty limit and had some discretion in the increase.
He asked whether the department would set the eligibility
at 200 percent if the the bill were to pass, Ms. Etheridge
answered that the department would likely set the
percentage at 200 percent of the federal poverty limit. She
indicated that there were proposed regulations for TANF
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families that would require
SNAP at 200 percent FPL. The department would not want to
duplicate work if it could be prevented. She voiced that
the decision was up to the will of the committee.
Representative Stapp relayed that he was aware that the
department would increase the limit to 200 percent. He
asked if the bill were to pass whether there was confidence
that there would not be another backlog in the following
year. Ms. Etheridge answered that she would adopt measures
to avoid a backlog by taking a phased approach to
implementation. Representative Stapp thought that 150
percent was a good start for implementation and yielded for
questions from the committee.
12:11:00 PM
Representative Hannan cited the statistic that 13.6 percent
of Alaskans were between 100 percent and 199 percent of
FPL. She asked whether she was correct. Ms. Etheridge
replied in the affirmative. Representative Hannan
calculated that out of the 13 percent eligible Alaskans
some were already eligible and or receiving the benefit
because they were between 100 percent and 130 percent of
the poverty guidelines. Ms. Etheridge responded in the
affirmative. Representative Hannan was in opposition to
conceptual amendment 2. She believed that a 20 percent
addition was not enough and if the TANF program mandated
200 percent FPL it would create eligibility requirements in
two different programing levels with two different
evaluations; SNAP at 150 percent and TANF at 200 percent.
12:13:01 PM
Representative Josephson recalled that HB 196 had one
fiscal note that would cost the state's treasury $69
thousand. He asked if the amount would help more than 10
thousand more Alaskans pay for food. Ms. Etheridge
responded that the amendment would require an additional
fiscal note from the division. Representative Josephson
believed that there was only one fiscal note for HB 196. He
asked if there was an additional expense if the amendment
merged into the senior benefits bill other than what was
contained in the fiscal note. Ms. Etheridge responded that
the senior benefits bill, SB 170 had a fiscal note and the
broad-based categorical eligibility had two separate fiscal
notes. She disclosed that the department had prepared
fiscal notes in the event that the amendment was adopted;
they were largely identical to the original fiscal notes
for HB 196. Representative Josephson noted that SB 170 had
two fiscal notes that totaled approximately $140 thousand
combined. He asked if the state spent $140 thousand, could
it assist in feeding 10 thousand more Alaskans. Ms.
Etheridge responded in the affirmative.
Representative Galvin recalled that many other states were
at 200 percent of the poverty level and asked for the exact
number of states. Ms. Etheridge responded that the
statistics came from the sponsor of the bill and she
offered to follow up.
12:17:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GENEVIEVE MINA, SPONSOR, answered that there
were approximately 25 states at 200 percent of poverty
level and listed the name of each state.
Representative Galvin understood that the funding was from
federal dollars. She asked if there was some portion of the
funding that paid for the administration of the program.
Ms. Etheridge affirmed that the food stamps benefits were
federal pass through funds and additional administrative
costs were included in the attached fiscal note.
Representative Cronk worried about receiving a lot of phone
calls regarding a SNAP backlog if the program was not
phased in. He was concerned that it was a set up for
failure. He favored Representative Stapp's amendment.
Representative Stapp provided wrap up comments. He was
offering the amendment because he felt it was unwise that
once the department cleared the SNAP backlog it created a
backlog for Medicaid and a half dozen other programs." He
worried about creating backlogs and believed that at 200
percent FPL it would create another SNAP backlog.
12:21:12 PM
AT EASE
12:21:29 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster indicated that the motion was to adopt
Conceptual Amendment 1 for Amendment 2 and asked if the
objection was maintained.
Representative Hannan maintained the objection.
12:21:51 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Cronk, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe
OPPOSED: Hannan, Josephson, Galvin, Ortiz, Edgmon, Foster
The MOTION FAILED (4/6).
12:22:40 PM
Representative Stapp asked whether the sponsor of Amendment
2 checked with Legislative Legal Services regarding
compliance with the single subject rule. Representative
Hannan replied that she did not receive a memo from the
drafter regarding an issue with the single subject rule.
12:23:00 PM
Co-Chair Foster indicated that the motion was to adopt
Amendment 2.
Representative Stapp maintained the objection.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Josephson, Galvin, Ortiz, Cronk, Edgmon,
Foster
OPPOSED: Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe
The MOTION PASSED (7/3).
12:23:57 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon Co-Chair Edgmon MOVED to REPORT SB 170 out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying and forthcoming fiscal notes and allow
Legislative Legal Services the authority to make technical
and conforming changes.
12:25:10 PM
Representative Stapp OBJECTED for discussion. He hoped he
would be wrong a year from now, but in the event that there
was another SNAP backlog it would be unfortunate.
Representative Stapp WITHDREW the objection.
There being no further objection, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 170(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with eight
"do pass" recommendations and two "amend" recommendations
and with two new fiscal impact notes from the Department of
Health and one previously published fiscal impact note: FN1
(DOH).
12:26:34 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 259 Amendment #1 Foster 051324.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
SB 259 |
| SB 205 Public Testimony Rec'd by 050724.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2024 10:00:00 AM |
SB 205 |