Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
07/25/2008 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB4006 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB4006 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 4006
An Act authorizing, as a temporary rebate of state
resources to certain state residents, payments to
assist in meeting heating costs under the federal and
state heating assistance programs; and providing for an
effective date.
9:12:56 AM
JAY LIVEY, STAFF, SENATOR HOFFMAN, testified on HB 4006. He
explained that the bill would provide relief to Alaskans for
their home heating costs.
He provided a sectional overview of the legislation.
· Section 2 proposes to raise the amount of assistance
relief for home heating costs. It does not specify
amounts. The department determines a mechanism to
determine the relief using the federally-funded Low
Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP) formula.
· Section 3 proposes to increase the benefit from up
to 225% to 350% of poverty for eligible individuals.
The legislation uses the LIHEAP formula to tie the
benefit to income: the more money an individual
earns the less benefit they receive.
9:18:34 AM
Mr. Livey explained that the formula takes into account the
cost of the fuel the family is using, as well as the type of
dwelling and income level of the individual family. The
formula will provide a fair and equitable way to distribute
the relief. The LIHEAP formula was chosen because the
LIHEAP Administration is already in place and can be used
and expanded for the intended purpose. He added that the
formula is not specific to an area of the state. He pointed
out that LIHEAP is a statewide effort to get the money out
for heating costs.
9:20:05 AM
Mr. Livey provided members with data provided by the
Department of Health and Social Services on the Heating
Assistance Program: "Participation and Expenditure by
Community" (copy on file). He observed that there is good
data on fuel costs and how people heat their homes; however,
there is not good data on how much each individual uses in
the winter expenditure. The state knows that in the rural
area, heating oil is used predominately. He observed that
70% of those living in Fairbanks use heating oil while
Anchorage residents predominately use natural gas and the
other areas use a mixture.
According to a 2007 study by the Institute of Social and
Economic Research (ISER) of individuals at the bottom 20% of
income (earning approximately $30 thousand per year) paid
about $6,300 per year in remote rural areas, for their
heating fuel and electricity costs as compared to $1300.88
in Anchorage; $3,000 in Kenai and Matsu; and $2,600 in
Juneau and Fairbanks. There is disparity in the areas of
the state.
9:22:32 AM
Mr. Livey observed that LIHEAP is used as a mechanism to
distribute funds and was originally designed as a poverty
program, but emphasized that the legislation extends the
poverty eligibility to 350% ($80 thousand a year). He
acknowledged that "under virtually any circumstances that it
doesn't mean they still don't need some relief from the high
cost of energy." The bill was designed to give the most
money to those with lower incomes. He maintained that HB
4006 is not a poverty bill.
9:23:43 AM
Representative Hawker mentioned PCE (power cost
equalization) and the state subsidy for electric power
generation with a weighted average in Anchorage, Fairbanks,
and Juneau. He observed that HB 4006 addresses a home
heating fuel rebate. He asked how the bills overlap
providing a dual subsidy.
Mr. Livey responded that there are two separate populations.
He pointed out that PCE only subsidizes power above 15.4
cents per kWh. Bush inhabitants still pay higher
electricity costs than other areas of the state. Heating
for homes is limited to oil or natural gas, with very few
exceptions, in the state of Alaska. In the rural areas,
there is not much overlap, between the two sources of
energy. He observed that LIHEAP does not pay all of an
individual's heating costs; they will still be required to
buy a considerable amount of heating oil.
9:27:21 AM9:27:21 AM
Representative Hawker requested empirical data supporting
Mr. Livey's statement. Mr. Livey referred to an ISER
document (written in 2007 or 2008) that indicated that there
is little evidence that electricity is used to heat Alaskan
homes. He maintained that the electrical and heating
situations are different. Representative Hawker requested a
copy of the study.
9:28:23 AM
Representative Hawker noted concern with inflated energy
costs in the state. He thought that the bills before the
committee largely benefit rural Alaska, but inflating energy
costs have affected all Alaskans. He suspected the
increases have been greatest in small villages and as a
percentage in Fairbanks. He pointed out that cost
inflation to the Railbelt communities has not been
addressed. The cost of inflation in these communities is in
the form of motor vehicle fuel costs. Motor fuel increases
have been substantial for individuals in these communities
that need to commute in order to support their families. He
questioned if his constituents, individuals living in
Railbelt communities, are any less deserving of state
subsidies.
Mr. Livey acknowledged that part of the question is
philosophical. He did not agree that the legislation was
primarily aimed at rural residents even though they will
receive the higher amount of the reward. The two areas of
the state that have the highest percentage of those that
will receive a benefit from the program are in Anchorage and
Fairbanks. The differential is determined by how much money
a person makes. "It is true, philosophically, we are making
a decision, and saying, that if you make a lot of money,
then use need less relief, then someone who makes less
money."
Mr. Livey continued that the question remains: What is the
state's role in relieving a person of a higher cost if they
chose to live in a rural area. The state has taken the
position that there are cultural and heritage
characteristics related to living in rural areas.
Mr. Livey observed that in 1983 PCE was based on a tradeoff
for Four Damn Pool and the interties. This relationship is
broken by the legislation. The bill only determines if
individuals are paying more than 120% no matter where they
live or how the energy is provided. The program includes
everyone and is based on income. The program expands the
number of Alaskans receiving relief.
9:34:41 AM
Representative Hawker pointed out that urban dwellers have
hundreds of years of cultural heritage, living in communal
organizations. The concern is that urban dwellers receive
equal benefits. He worried about discrimination in the
process.
Co-Chair Meyer asked to see how many qualify for the program
in Anchorage. Mr. Livey offered to provide the list.
9:36:19 AM
Vice-Chair Stoltze applauded the comments made by
Representative Hawker regarding motor fuel expenses. He
mentioned the high cost of fixed expenses in his area. He
stated that, demographically, his community costs are
continually rising. He asked about home heating fuel and
the legislation requesting the State to place dollars into
those costs. He thought that the State should freeze the
sales taxes on home heating charges. He hoped to amend the
Governor's call to put a moratorium on local government's
charging taxation on a vital commodity.
9:40:21 AM
Mr. Livey responded that regardless of where the population
lives in the State, the rise of oil costs has impacted all
Alaskans. The costs are rising, but so are revenues.
Vice-Chair Stoltze addressed the sales tax issue. Mr. Livey
requested additional testifiers to address the query. He
wasn't sure what the impact might be through LIHEAP if you
take away the taxation on the federal program or the
administration of it.
Vice-Chair Stoltze stated that one effect would be cheaper
barrel price. Co-Chair Meyer agreed.
9:43:01 AM
Representative Joule questioned the impact of the
appropriation to the recipients. He warned about the need
to point out the shortfalls of the legislation. He asserted
that Alaska's problem with high energy costs is really an
opportunity of potential for Alaska. He pointed out that
PCE issues will not help rural Alaska. State resources
should benefit all people of the State. He referenced the
handout provided by Mr. Livey. He asked for an overview of
the handout elaborating percentages.
9:48:55 AM
Mr. Livey stated that he had received the information from
the Department of Health and Social Services. He asked that
they address the handout regarding the requested
percentages.
9:49:51 AM
RON KREHER, CHIEF OF FIELD OPERATIONS, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, responded to
questions. He explained that the department's data (provided
by Mr. Livey) shows the number of households served in
total, excluding data from tribal organizations.
Representative Joule inquired about the distribution between
urban and rural areas. He asked that the percentages be
attached.
Mr. Kreher agreed to break the data down by census
districts.
9:51:49 AM
Co-Chair Chenault referred to tribal entities and the block
grant distribution. He pointed out that Bethel had not been
included. He wanted to know the amount of federal dollars
going to tribal entities.
Mr. Kreher offered to provide that information. He noted
that the data from the tribes lags until October. He
offered to provide the 2007 data and their share of the
federal block grant.
9:53:02 AM
In response to a question by Representative Hawker, Mr.
Kreher explained that the state receives a block grant,
which determines the base amount. The state also receives
periodic emergency contingency funds that are calculated at
the end of the application process to determine the
supplemental amount eligible households receive. The offset
[between the amount in the regular cases category and the
total cases category] is the result of additional
supplemental payments made to eligible households. For
example, Akhiok received a base block grant amount of $3,400
that was increased to $4,998 with the addition of emergency
contingency funds.
9:54:53 AM
Representative Hawker pointed out that the supplemental
amount column was missing, which explained why the total is
greater than the sum of the two. He noted that the
Anchorage area indicates a total of $45 thousand. He asked
if that had been redistributed. Mr. Livey offered to
research that information. He added that households in
Anchorage should have received a supplemental payment.
9:56:19 AM
Representative Joule requested information on the amount
each area receives and how much oil or gas that money would
purchase including the obvious differences in those areas.
Mr. Kreher stated that he could access information on the
price of fuel. The point system of benefit for households
uses a program from the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
that uses variances between the fuel costs in different
communities. However, the price of fuel is so volatile that
it is difficult to do so on an on-going base.
9:59:42 AM
Representative Hawker referenced the LIHEAP program and
asked if it creates a taxable event to any of the
beneficiaries from the standpoint of federal income tax.
Mr. Kreher replied that it does not.
Representative Hawker wondered if the proposal being
contemplated in the legislation would result in a taxable
event. Mr. Kreher could not answer, but observed that the
Department of Law requested the exploration of the same
inquiry.
Representative Hawker asked if LIHEAP receipts would be
counted against the beneficiaries in the receipt of other
federal or state human service benefits. Mr. Kreher said it
does not.
Representative Hawker asked if the expansion of the LIHEAP
program would have an effect on the receipt of those
benefits. Mr. Kreher stated that they did not believe it
would because these are direct vendor payments. He added
that beyond 225% of poverty, most households would not be
eligible for needs based or tested programs.
10:02:11 AM
Representative Kelly wanted an overview of all aid programs
(existing and proposed) to see how they are interconnected.
He acknowledged the need to mitigate the impact of the high
fuel costs, but warned that these [proposed programs] could
place more "harm" on Alaska's future in the area of
individual responsibility and self reliance.
10:06:00 AM
Representative Gara asked for income qualifications for the
percent of poverty in the current LIHEAP program. Co-Chair
Meyer referred to a chart provided by Mr. Kreher: "2008
Poverty Guidelines for Alaska, Income Guidelines as
Published" (copy on file). Mr. Kreher clarified that the
income limit for the current low income heating energy
assistance program is 150% of the federal poverty
guidelines; the legislation would increase the limit of up
to 350%. Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the legislature
added $10 million to the state portion in the previous year.
Mr. Kreher stated that the legislation from last year
created a state funded program. Any balance left over from
that program would be used to supplement all households that
received heating assistance.
10:08:33 AM
Representative Gara clarified that the provision increases
the state limit to 350%. Mr. Kreher observed that the
federal law caps income limits at 150% of poverty.
Representative Gara commented on campaigning process. He
acknowledged that the program does not treat people equally
and people recognize that there are some that are suffering
more than others. Most are particularly sympathetic to
rural Alaska. He admitted to recently learning that heating
a house in Dillingham costs $2,000 per month. He referenced
the chart distributed by Mr. Livey with regard to the
$45,418 in LIHEAP money designated to Anchorage. He
questioned the possibility of the data presented being a
mistake, or possibly deserving a bigger explanation.
Mr. Kreher replied that the presented data regarding
Anchorage was an anomaly. He will look into it and get back
to the committee on what the correct amounts of total
payments were for Anchorage. Representative Gara noted that
while the data was inaccurate, the number remains striking
to him, because most of his low income constituents live
in public housing where the heat is paid for, so they
wouldn't be getting LIHEAP money.
10:12:19 AM
Representative Thomas requested the number of other
administrated programs that are below 350% of poverty. His
concern was that if the level was raised then the
expectation of other programs would increase as well.
Mr. Kreher responded that he was not qualified to answer the
question.
Representative Gara agreed that it does not need to go up as
high 350%. He asked the total dollars associated with that
percentage.
Mr. Kreher observed that the fiscal note would be $75.162
million additional money. Mr. Livey added that the
department intends to prepare a fiscal note with the dollar
amount based on the assumption that the current energy costs
for the program would triple.
Mr. Livey explained that the LIHEAP payments would go to a
vendor on behalf of the individual and not directly to the
individual.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the payout was retroactive to July
st
1. Mr. Livey did not think the intention was to make the
appropriation retroactive.
10:16:55 AM
Mr. Kreher explained that the purpose of the LIHEAP program
is to provide home heating assistance. The state receives a
block grant that is shared out with nine tribal
organizations. In FY2008, the state of Alaska served about
15,000 households; tribal organizations served an estimated
6,400. The 9,353 households served by the state reached
27,000 individuals. Two-thirds of the households that were
under 150% of poverty were below 100% of poverty.
Generally, for eligibility criteria an individual must be a
resident of the state, must reside in the household that
incurred heating costs and have unsubsidized heating costs
above $200. Payments must be used for heating fuel. The
vast majority of these are vendor payments. The methodology
used to calculate awards is based on community heating cost
points. The points are calculated taking into account
geographic location, heating fuel type, climatic conditions,
and the type of dwelling with an additional point awarded
for an elderly or disabled resident or a child under the age
of five. He continued that an individual's income bracket is
also a factor in point allocation.
Based on block grant amounts received from the federal
government, the number of households served is anticipated,
giving a dollar point that is used to apply against the
points that are available to the household. Mr. Livey
concluded his overview of how the LIHEAP program works. The
stth
application period for LIHEAP is September 1 to April 30,
st
with initial benefits issued on November 1. The Alaska
Heating Assistance Program mirrors LIHEAP except that it
looks at a population of 150%-225% of poverty and allows for
tribal programs.
Mr. Livey continued that pushing the eligibility level to up
to 350% places the department outside the realm that was
intended to serve the most economically disadvantaged
households. He indicated difficultly arriving at hard
numbers for the potential service population. The estimate
is conservative. There could be as many as 22,000
households served.
10:23:12 AM
Representative Kelly requested information on how the LIHEAP
program affects residents. He asked for further explanation
of the mechanics of the proposal.
Mr. Kreher observed that the state program has always been
able to provide some level of benefit to households. He
explained that they look at the federal block grant and past
caseloads to make their best estimate of the dollar value
per point per household.
Representative Kelly wanted to see the formula for
clarification. Mr. Kreher stated that he could provide a
mock-up of household scenarios. Representative Kelly pointed
out that a person at 80% of poverty receives different
treatment than someone that is at 200% of poverty. Mr.
Kreher explained that households receive a percentage for
every 25% change in income level after the initial
eligibility determination. For example, households between
0 and 25 percent of poverty would receive 100% of the points
or 10 points. The ten points would be multiplied by the
dollar factor calculated based on the funding stream.
Households between 25 - 50 percent of poverty would receive
90% of the points. He observed that no benefits have been
issued for the $10 million passed by the legislature.
Co-Chair Meyer commented on retroactivity of HB 152, which
st
added $10 million, to November 1 2007. Mr. Kreher stated
that HB 152 left the retroactivity clause to the discretion
of the department. He believed the strategy used satisfied
the intent of the retroactivity, and at this point the
retroactive provision is not activated.
10:28:42 AM
Representative Thomas inquired about those on fixed incomes:
state and federal retirees, and the disabled. He wanted to
see those persons addressed.
10:30:26 AM
JON SHERWOOD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROGRAM REVIEW, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (DHSS), provided information
on the LIHEAP program. He agreed that a line has to be drawn
somewhere. He emphasized that under the LIHEAP program as
incomes increase the percentages of eligibility decrease, so
that the difference of falling on one side or other on the
line is less significant.
Representative Thomas commented that expenses are rising
along with incomes and that even among higher income
brackets such as his; the financial struggle is present
without the luxury of a subsidy.
10:31:55 AM
Representative Hawker mentioned the Senior Benefit Program
as a factor of the equation. He referenced the FY 07
[appropriation] for LIHEAP and expressed concern with the
difference in amounts that have historically been
appropriated to the program and the amount actually
delivered to the intended beneficiaries. In FY 07, $9.7
million were budgeted for that program, but the actual
expenditure of money in FY 07 was under $7.5 million. He
questioned the discrepancy.
Mr. Kreher responded that the nature of the funding stream
allowed them to carry-over a certain amount of funds
designated to heating assistance for the upcoming year. He
offered to research the subject further.
Representative Hawker cautioned the expansion of a program
that historically has had discrepancies. He wanted to make
sure it would be used to benefit the recipients, under
expenditure of authorized funds.
10:34:45 AM
Mr. Sherwood addressed the fiscal note and explained that a
target number was chosen of three times the value of current
points used for the LIHEAP program. In addition to tripling
the value of those points, the slope was flattened at which
points diminished as income decreased. He estimated the
amount of claims paid for both supplementing LIHEAP and the
Alaska heating assistance program would be just over $74
million. Administrative expenses are just over $850.0
thousand. Currently they have fourteen staff members that
accomplish 11,000 applications per year. He anticipated
25,000 applications. Higher income applications are more
complicated to evaluate. He requested an increase of 16
temporary staff members. Regarding retroactivity, he
continued that an increase for this year, would meet the
intent of providing a retroactive benefit as expressed in HB
152.
Co-Chair Meyer asked for further clarification regarding
retroactivity.
Mr. Sherwood responded that a retroactive payment was
discretionary to the department. The fiscal note triples
the amount of the benefit and would effectively meet the
intent of the new population of HB 152.
10:38:05 AM
Vice-Chair Stoltze questioned if the proposed number of
employees would be adequate. Mr. Kreher replied that it
will be a seasonal benefit program. Having more staff will
not address the problem due to the recruitment, training,
and hiring processes. If the tribal organizations come into
the program, some of the work effort will go out: pushing
administrative funds to the tribes. He expressed concern
about the volume of applications anticipated.
Vice-Chair Stoltze added that weatherization was a seasonal
matter as well, yet was successfully expedited. Mr. Kreher
replied that it is a seasonable program and the positions
are temporary.
Co-Chair Meyer wanted to see a sunset or review on the bill
if it is passed. He commented that oil prices are falling
and if they continue to fall, assistance should not be given
to a family of four making $92,000.
Mr. Sherwood explained that the bill applies to September
1st tst
1st2008 to August 1 2009. The goal is to process all
eligible applications by the end of the fiscal year,
st
although there is no authority to extend beyond August 1
2009. He declared that it is factored into the assumptions
when asking for temporary positions.
10:43:49 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked how many additional households would
qualify. Mr. Kreher estimated 22,250.
Co-Chair Meyer asked how the public would be informed
regarding the availability of the funds. Mr. Kreher
explained that the department's Public Information Office
and the Heating Assistance Program have developed a
communication plan using websites, and public service
announcements, as well as a number of different media
outlets.
10:45:08 AM
Representative Kelly asked about the before mentioned
qualifications to identify the unsubsidized piece. He asked
if a person had a 1,000 square foot home, and used 1,000
gallons per year; would the $1,200 plan be recognized.
Mr. Kreher replied that would depend on whether the $1,200
plan would be considered a fuel subsidy.
10:47:05 AM
Representative Hawker stated that if program money was
rolled into the permanent fund dividend and identified as
such, state regulations would exempt it as income, but if it
came through some other vehicle, it would have to be
reexamined.
Mr. Kreher pointed out that HB 152 could, upon
appropriation, still provide a program for households
between 150% and 225% of poverty.
Representative Hawker cautioned that public expectation
would be created once the program started. He cautioned that
the need would continue, but the resources will not be
there, and the state would see itself back in challenging
deficits.
Representative Gara asked about the fiscal impact of paring
back to 250% of poverty. He requested various levels
including 275%, 300%, and 350% to determine the various
costs.
Mr. Kreher agreed to provide the requested data.
10:50:44 AM
Representative Gara commented on the difficulty of the
issues. He stated concerns about expense and commented that
lowering the percentage would allow the state to administer
benefits for a considerable time.
Co-Chair Chenault requested an explanation of what payoff
would be under guidelines for a family of one and a family
of five at 350% of poverty.
Mr. Kreher agreed to provide the information. He offered to
provide data for two communities: Anchorage and Dillingham.
Representative Kelly added that he would like to see numbers
comparing the proposed program with the current LIHEAP
program.
10:54:27 AM
Representative Thomas asked if a recipient was using
electric heat primarily, would the bill paid to the electric
company, because he knew of several communities where
electric heat is less expensive than heating oil.
Mr. Kreher affirmed that if the primary source of heat is
electric, then a vendor payment would be made to the
electric company. He reported that it is not uncommon for
people living in poverty during the winter months to
postpone paying their bill. He reported that there was then
negotiation with the vendor for electricity to be provided
to make sure there is some assistance overlap.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the administration had a position on
the bill.
Mr. Sherwood observed that the administration is currently
reviewing the bill and did not currently have a position.
The governor said that she would consider ideas brought
forth by the legislature.
Co-Chair Meyer asked the average income in the state of
Alaska.
Mr. Kreher answered that the data regarding mean incomes is
readily available through the Department of Labor, broken
down by census areas.
Co-Chair Meyer described a hypothetical situation and
thought the total subsidy would be informative, for both an
urban and rural area.
10:58:45 AM
Representative Kelly asked about joint custody situations
with children in two homes and how to prevent the double
count.
Mr. Kreher observed that most programs try to determine who
has true physical custody over 50% of the time.
Co-Chair Chenault referred to a call dealing with power cost
equalization (PCE) for a $9.0 million fiscal note as an
increase to PCE.
Representative Joule commented on child custody issues in
the area of garnishments in a two-family situation.
11:01:31 AM
Mr. Kreher replied that he was not sure how garnishments
were treated, when determining income for the LIHEAP
program.
Representative Joule observed that if the intent is to help
people during difficult times, a garnishment might prevent
the person from receiving the help.
Mr. Sherwood asked for clarification regarding whether the
concern was that the assistance payment was being garnished,
or is the concern about the counting of income that may have
been garnished.
Representative Joule realized that he was talking about a
bill he hadn't heard yet.
Representative Hawker commented on the energy policy
direction for the state. He stressed the need to see the
proposals as components of a whole and not as individual
bills. He listed benchmarks as efficient, equitable, and
effective solutions. He asked that the desired objectives be
determined as either long term evolutionary/revolutionary
change, or short term crisis relief.
11:06:56 AM
Representative Hawker stated grave concerns about the risk
of ripping the urban rural divide wide open. He urged
sensitivity and maintaining unity. He asserted the need to
keep the discussion rational.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed that the challenge was to find a
solution that benefits all Alaskans. He thought it would be
a package deal; one that takes into account PCE, LIHEAP and
maybe the $1,200; although he agreed that he doesn't like
giving 30% to the federal government. He asked for ideas
from the committee regarding a possible package.
11:10:34 AM
Representative Joule acknowledged the need for balance
between short-term and long-term needs in a variety of
communities. He stressed that some of the services are in
jeopardy. He suggested that these issues be addressed in
each community prior to the next meeting.
11:13:08 AM
Representative Kelly urged a broad perspective. He
maintained that while Fairbanks had been hit hard because of
increased fuel costs, many smaller rural communities are
also suffering.
Co-Chair Chenault spoke to rural issues. He urged
consideration, not only of particular constituents, but all
Alaskans.
11:16:30 AM
Vice-Chair Stoltze spoke to regional divides. Each region
has unique challenges.
Representative Gara described the evolution of his thinking
regarding flat payments. He noted that the flat $1,200
payment includes more money than PCE and LIHEAP (combined at
$75 million.) He compared the flat payment at $700 million.
He revealed that he would like to see a combination of all
three presented as a compromise. He thought the special
session could address some of the longer term challenges of
leveling out the cost of energy. He advised that money be
added to the Renewable Energy Fund.
Representative Gara warned of weatherization programs
without state-wide building codes. He maintained that AHFC
rules and construction codes are questionable. He surmised
that the public wants some sort of long term relief plan to
come out of the special session.
11:20:59 AM
Co-Chair Meyer felt that the long-term solution was with the
passing of AGIA (Alaska Gas Inducement Act), which is at
least ten years down the line. He thought the idea of
putting more money into an alternative energy fund needed
further discussion.
Co-Chair Meyer addressed the handout: "State of Alaska
Heating Assistance Program, Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services." He advised the
review of the handout.
Mr. Kreher clarified that the handout was the proposal and
plan for the federal government last year and would perhaps
not be helpful in the current situation.
11:23:08 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|