Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
02/08/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB79 | |
| HB75 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 79-LONGEVITY BONUS REAPPLICATIONS 8:07:34 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 79, "An Act relating to reapplications for the Alaska longevity bonus program; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 79, Version 25-LS0359\C, Cook, 2/5/07.] 8:07:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 79, Version 25-LS0359\M, Cook, 2/7/07, as a work draft. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. 8:08:23 AM MICHAEL SICA, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Lynn, joint prime sponsor of HB 79, reviewed the changes made in Version M. First, he noted that Section 1 had been reworded to make it easier to read. Added to Section 1 is another compliance requirement, AS 47.45.030(a), which read as follows: (a) After qualification, a recipient shall notify the commissioner of health and social services when the recipient expects to be absent from the state if the absence is for a continuous period that exceeds 60 days. After that notification, the recipient may no longer receive bonuses from the Department of Health and Social Services after the last regularly approved monthly application. Upon returning to the state, the recipient may again make application for a bonus. Failure to notify the commissioner of an expected absence may be grounds for disqualification. MR. SICA relayed that Section 1(a) and 1(b) include technical changes that would replace the Department of Administration with the Department of Health and Social Services [as the administrator of the reapplication forms]. 8:09:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to Version M. There being no further objection, Version M was before the committee as a work draft. CHAIR LYNN emphasized that HB 79 would not restore funding for the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program; however, it would make reapplication possible for previously qualified bonus recipients. No applications will be issued, unless both the legislature and governor agree to refund the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program. 8:10:56 AM CHAIR LYNN stated that back in 2002, he made a campaign promise to do his best to protect the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program. He revealed, as a manner of disclosure, that neither he nor anyone else in his family has ever qualified for the longevity bonus. He offered a history of the legislature's past actions, which led to the demise of the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program, as follows: On [May 8, 2003,] the then commissioner of [the Department of] Administration came before ... [the House] State Affairs Committee and presented House Bill 158, the previous governor's bill to eliminate the [Alaska Longevity Bonus Program]. I told the then commissioner, among other things, that I believed the [Alaska Longevity Bonus Program] was a de facto contract between Alaska and its senior citizens. ... The previous governor's bill did pass out of the [House] State Affairs Committee, with five out of seven "do not pass" recommendations. A similar bill in the Senate to eliminate the bonus - Senate Bill 117 - came to the House floor for a final vote on May 20, 2003. The bill was defeated in the House on May 20, with a vote of 25 to 13, with 2 excused absences, and as a result, the [Alaska Longevity Bonus Program] was ... saved. Thirteen of the legislators who voted against the governor's bill to eliminate the [longevity] bonus are in today's Twenty-Fifth [Alaska State] Legislature, and that happens to be eight Republicans and five Democrats - plus the two who were excused. Then, on June 12, 2003, the then governor line item vetoed funding for the [Alaska Longevity Bonus Program] that the legislature had ... restored. On January 12, the first day of the next session, an attempt to call a Joint Session of the Legislature to override the governor's veto funding failed. As a result, there has been no funding of the [Alaska Longevity Bonus Program] since the governor's veto. However, ... and this is the important part, the longevity bonus statutes have never ... been taken off the books. In other words, to restore the [Alaska Longevity Bonus Program] as it was requires only that the program be funded. ... Governor [Sarah] Palin has included that funding in her budget, and, along with many others, I do thank her for that. ... If the administration and the legislature agree to fund the bonus - as I personally hope that they do - legislation that permits formerly eligible persons to re-apply is required. And that's all this bill is about, and nothing else. It is my desire, if possible, to pass this fairly simple bill out of committee today. 8:13:40 AM MR. SICA explained that when the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program shut down, people stopped filing their required monthly applications, and "thereby violated continuous eligibility procedures for future payments." The result was that those former recipients were disqualified from the program for violating statutes that were impossible to follow. He emphasized that the purpose of the bill is to ensure that the remaining recipients who qualified for the program before it was shut down in 2003 are not disqualified from future payments due to circumstances beyond their control. He related that Governor Palin has included $33 million in a budget request to restore the program "for" fiscal year 2008 (FY 08). Without a bill such as HB 79, he said, the State of Alaska could have a funded Alaska Longevity Bonus Program with no one eligible to receive monthly payments. 8:16:04 AM MR. SICA relayed that the Department of Law has said reapplication legislation is necessary in order to [reinstate] the program if it is restored. He reviewed that Section 1(a) would require the commissioner of the Department of Health and Social Services to accept reapplication from people under the following circumstances: they were qualified to receive a monthly longevity bonus payment for January 1, 1997 - the day after admission to the program was closed; they were eligible for the bonus in June of 2003 - when the program stopped being funded; and they have maintained continuous state residency between June 20, 2003, and the date on which the reapplication is filed. Section 1(b), he said, would require that the reapplication be filed before January 1, 2008, and it directs the Department of Health and Social Services to prepare a reapplication form and require evidence of eligibility for the bonus. MR. SICA noted that Section 1(c) would give the department the right to determine if a person who reapplies meets the requirements set forth in subsection (a), and it would set the amount of the person's monthly bonus, based on what that person received before the funding was eliminated. Section 2, he said, sets an effective date of July 1, 2007, which was requested by the Department of Law. 8:19:31 AM ELLIE FITZJARRALD, Acting Director, Division of Public Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), noted that there are three fiscal notes included in the committee packet: one addressing Alaska Longevity Bonus Program grants; one addressing funds that are used to replace the federal social security supplemental income (SSI) received by some recipients of the longevity bonus; and one addressing the administrative component to administer the program. She explained that SSI is a federal, needs-based program that counts the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program as income, thus there is an Alaska Longevity Bonus (ALB) "Hold Harmless" Program to replace those lost benefits "so people aren't harmed from it." MS. FITZJARRALD, in response to a question from Representative Coghill, said the food stamp program, which is 100 percent federally funded, would also count the Alaska Longevity Bonus as income; however, "the other programs would not count the Alaska Longevity Bonus as income." 8:22:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL surmised, "That would be counted on your eligibility to get senior care." MS. FITZJARRALD said the SeniorCare Program is scheduled to sunset June 30, [2007], and the governor is working on a proposal to "introduce legislation," after which time it will be possible to discuss the relationship between SeniorCare Program and the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program. 8:22:54 AM MS. FITZJARRALD, in response to a question from Representative Johnson, explained that the SSI program counts all income, but allows a $20 deduction from income. For example, if a person receives social security retirement benefits and the Alaska Longevity Bonus, those two benefits would be added together and the $20 would be subtracted from that. She said, "If they don't have any income at all, and are receiving only needs based benefits, and the Alaska Longevity Bonus was their only source of income, then that $20 would be reduced from their Alaska Longevity income amount." In response to a follow-up question from Representative Johnson, she confirmed that the Alaska permanent fund dividend (PFD) is also counted as income by the federal SSI program. She added that there is a separate PFD hold harmless program set up to replace those lost benefits. 8:24:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked which fiscal note would reflect the cost of reopening the application process. 8:24:50 AM MS. FITZJARRALD explained that the governor's FY 08 budget request already includes funds for the reinstatement of the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program; the previously mentioned fiscal notes represent changes to what is in the governor's request. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that he supports the concept of the bill but will reserve final support until he sees the final budget. 8:27:02 AM MS. FITZJARRALD, in response to a request from Chair Lynn, directed attention to the fiscal note with the component named, "Longevity Bonus Grants," and noted that the $2.7 million savings reflected on it is compared to the governor's budget. She continued: Essentially, what's occurred [are] two things. This legislation phases in the program between July 1 and January 1. ... What we've taken into consideration is that ... there may be staggered applications. In addition, the current law only allows an accrual of two months of longevity bonus checks from the point of application. So, these savings are a result of those two considerations. The governor's budget was estimated, assuming that all recipients would be eligible for a full twelve months. So, the savings that are generated are here, taking the two considerations of the reapplication and the accrual of only two months of benefits. 8:28:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Fitzjarrald to clarify whether she is saying that the governor did not fund the hold harmless provision when she included funding for the Longevity Bonus program in the budget. MS. FITZJARRALD said that is not what she is saying. She said there are over $1 million in the governor's budget request for "Longevity Bonus hold harmless." She continued: What this $350,000 fiscal note is: Since the time that the governor's budget was prepared, we've done some further analysis about recipients and what would be needed. We know that [there are] approximately 970 or so individuals getting the federal SSI check. So, we've recalculated what would be needed for [the] Longevity Bonus hold harmless program, and there's about $350,000 that is needed to fully fund that. 8:29:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concluded, "So, this is not really a fiscal note on this bill; it's a recalculation of your figures on the governor's budget." MS. FITZJARRALD responded, "... It takes in consideration both: what's currently in the governor's request, and the reapplication in ... HB 79." 8:29:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern because Alaska law "limits fiscal notes to the additional cost resulting from this legislation." He said he wants to know what the additional cost for the hold harmless provision would be only resulting from the proposed legislation, not from the recalculation of the governor's figures. He added, "That is a discussion that should be reserved for that issue in the budget." MS. FITZJARRALD said she wants to hold comment and defer to Janet Clark, who is a budget expert. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that before HB 79 reaches the House Finance Committee for consideration, the department generate an amended fiscal note "on this hold harmless," reducing it to reflect only the effect of the proposed legislation. MS. FITS responded, "We'll take that under consideration." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what efforts will be made to notify seniors. MS. FITZJARRALD indicated that, as has been done for past programs, the department would make significant efforts to do public outreach, and contact senior centers and AARP, for example. CHAIR LYNN remarked that senior citizens have "quite a communication network." 8:32:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that he is concerned about "the people who will fall through the cracks." He asked that the department mail notice to the last known address of each surviving former recipient of the Alaska Longevity Bonus. 8:33:39 AM MS. FITZJARRALD confirmed that the department plans to do that. She named other past outreach efforts that have been made. In response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, she indicated that the cost of [the outreach efforts] is planned for in the governor's budget request. 8:34:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested the committee "zero out" the fiscal note [with the component, "Longevity Bonus Hold Harmless"] and let the House Finance Committee rework it. He indicated the understanding of the committee is that "the cost won't be there." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the fiscal note related to grants is also speculative and would need to be reworked. MS. FITZJARRALD replied that the fiscal note reflects the departments fair assumptions of what has occurred since 2003. She said it is difficult to predict how many former recipients may have died or moved out of state, for example. However, she stated that using the estimations from the information available in the department, along with the projections from the time the program was unfunded to the present, the department estimates that there are 12,000 seniors who would still qualify. Of those, she added, some may have left the state or gone into long-term care and will not qualify, or perhaps will have passed away before the bill takes effect. 8:37:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested a letter be sent to the House Finance Committee, which may serve to address Representative Johnson's concern, and which might read as follows: The [House] State Affairs [Standing] Committee would like the [House] Finance Committee to take a careful look at the fiscal notes, because the number of recipients cannot be determined precisely, and the governor's proposed budget for the reinstatement of the [Alaska] Longevity Bonus is somewhat speculative. 8:37:46 AM CHAIR LYNN said that if the bill is passed out of committee, he, as one of the [joint prime sponsors] of the bill, could then discuss with Representative Gruenberg the possibility of sending a letter. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked a question pertaining to whether or not the time requirement [in the amendment] is consistent with a similar time requirement for PFD applications. MS. FITZJARRALD said she would get back to Representative Johnson with an answer. 8:38:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL mentioned the possibility of a legal challenge and asked for feedback on that issue. CHAIR LYNN clarified that that possibility could occur if the Longevity Bonus was refunded, and this bill does not refund it. 8:39:29 AM STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide Section Supervisor, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, addressed Representative Doll's request. Upon clarifying that Representative Doll was referring to a memorandum [from Tamara Cook, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services, dated September 22, 2006], she stated the following: I've reviewed that memo, and I agree with Tam Cook's analysis that there are potential legal challenges that could be brought, relative to the program, should it be funded eventually. That being said, as has been ... discussed here, from the fiscal aspect of the bill, it's kind of difficult to predict what may or may not happen, or the likelihood or the success of any constitutional challenge that might be brought. ... When the Longevity Bonus Program was brought forth, it was challenged, and a lawsuit was brought forward in the superior court, at which time the state superior court found the program constitutional. And ..., as I understand it, ... that case was not appealed any further to the Alaska Supreme Court. But that superior court decision was based on very narrow grounds, relative to the ... way that the legislation had been originally drafted. And so, the concerns that Ms. Cook outlined in her memo, [are] significant concerns for any future longevity bonus program, because that narrow ground will no longer exist. And so, there is the potential for a legal challenge, regardless of how it's funded or how it's organized, or what have you, as you can imagine. People will challenge it for any reason or for whatever reason. MS. KRALY, in response to remark from Chair Lynn, confirmed that the challenges that may happen would be in regard to the original program, not for HB 79. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the bill addresses not only reinstatement issues, but also qualification issues, which he predicted will open up a new discussion. MS. KRALY confirmed that's correct. She said that is a point made in Ms. Cook's memo. If the bill passes and individuals are once again made eligible for the program, some of the narrow grounds that were challenged in the past will no longer be legitimate. 8:42:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for clarification regarding "those that would have been eligible and are not eligible any more." MS. KRALY responded that she has not done a comprehensive analysis of that question, but it is something that the department will continue to look at, should HB 79 pass, in order to advise the governor regarding potential constitutional and legal questions. 8:43:56 AM TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services, said that when the Longevity Bonus Program was being phased out - a "stair-stepping" process - there was a challenge at the superior court level. She added, "Even the stair-stepping part has not been blessed by the supreme court." She opined that there is an outside possibility that the supreme court would not agree with the superior court on the phase-out issue. Furthermore, the time lapsed since the phasing out of the program creates a complication, she said. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is trying to understand what the ramifications of "changing some of the criteria" are. MS. COOK said she would be happy to meet with legislators to offer a more in-depth briefing of the legal aspects of the situation. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that because the committee has been addressing legal issues, the bill should perhaps be referred to the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He said those [legal] questions should be on the record. He asked Ms. Fitzjarrald how many people from the SeniorCare Program would "fall inside the qualifications of this program." MS. FITZJARRALD replied that there are approximately 2,500-2,600 seniors currently receiving assistance from the SeniorCare Program who were also former recipients of the Alaska Longevity Bonus. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if Ms. Fitzjarrald has any idea how many seniors outside of the needs-based category would also qualify "for this." 8:47:49 AM MS. FITZJARRALD said she does not, because that is "a very difficult number to get to with the information available." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he wants to know how many seniors in Alaska won't qualify. He indicated that he finds it difficult to support a bill where there may be people with great need who will not qualify and many with no need who will. MS. FITZJARRALD said she would try to get those answers for Representative Coghill. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his opinion that the original reason for the [Alaska Longevity Bonus Program] was "to honor those who had settled the land." He indicated that the court cases changed the dynamic of the program, shifting it to a one- year eligibility requirement. Soon, he said, "it was not then so much about how old they were, but what year they applied." Now, many of those who did settle the land are not eligible, he indicated. 8:50:41 AM MR. SICA noted three pages of background information included in the committee packet: a history of the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program; a statistical [summary]; and a population projection by age, produced by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development's Research and Analysis Section. He suggested that the population projection page may answer Representative Coghill's questions. 8:51:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented on the projections shown in the handout. 8:52:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Cook to provide copies of the "Maggard opinion" to the committee. Next, he directed attention to the reference to AS 47.45.030(a) on page 1, line 13. He cited the statute, which read as follows: (a) After qualification, a recipient shall notify the commissioner of health and social services when the recipient expects to be absent from the state if the absence is for a continuous period that exceeds 60 days. After that notification, the recipient may no longer receive bonuses from the Department of Health and Social Services after the last regularly approved monthly application. Upon returning to the state, the recipient may again make application for a bonus. Failure to notify the commissioner of an expected absence may be grounds for disqualification. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated: It seems to me that if the purpose of this bill is to get around that statute, the application of that statute just wouldn't apply in this case, where the program was "defunded" on a ... more-or-less permanent basis. Nobody would or should be expected to have notified the commissioner when the program was out, and it seems to me the department has the administrative discretion to waive that notification for disqualification because of the final sentence [of the aforementioned statute]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he does not think any court would apply AS 47.45.030(a) to this situation, and he urged Ms. Kraly, Ms. Fitzjarrald, and Ms. Cook to see if the issue could be solved administratively, instead of through passing HB 79. 8:55:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said the discussions put forth thus far are interesting and need to be held either in the House Finance Committee or the House Judiciary Standing Committee. However, the proposed legislation before the House State Affairs Standing Committee, he said, simply asks whether or not to reestablish the application process. 8:57:07 AM MS. FITZJARRALD emphasized the department's position is that the bill, as well as policy guidance, is needed in regard to reestablishing eligibility for the application process. She said, "We may need to look at some of the residency provisions because of some of the things Representative Gruenberg has pointed out that apply to people who have left the state, but the monthly reporting requirement applied to everybody." 8:57:48 AM CHAIR LYNN said one of the purposes of the bill is to assist the administration "in their side of this equation." 8:58:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to page 1, line 14, through page 2, line 1, which read as follows: (3) is a resident and has maintained continuous state residency during the period between June 30, 2003, and the date the reapplication is filed. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he would like a clear definition of "continuous state residency". 8:59:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON declared for the record a conflict of interest, in that his mother was a former recipient [of the longevity bonus] and probably would qualify under the program proposed by the bill. CHAIR LYNN asked that Representative Johnson continue participating in the bill process. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that his father qualifies. 9:00:44 AM PAT LUBY, Advocacy Director, AARP Alaska, testified in support of HB 79. He said many AARP members who previously received the longevity bonus were pleased when Governor Sarah Palin indicated her intent to reinstate the bonus. The proposed bill, he relayed, is the first technical step in that process and would allow previous bonus recipients to be eligible for the bonus if it is reinstated. 9:01:24 AM HERB SIMON, testifying on behalf of himself, noted that his family has been in Alaska since 1945, and none of it members have qualified for the longevity bonus. He indicated that the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program, while well-intentioned, "missed a lot of the pioneers" who built up Alaska. He noted that when former Governor [Frank Murkowski] did away with the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program, he replaced it with [the SeniorCare Program]. Mr. Simon opined that the SeniorCare Program: appears to be more equitable; doesn't have the "hangnails" that are attached to reestablishing the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program; and is helping many "old-timers" make ends meet. MR. SIMON talked about the rising cost of Medicaid and Medicare. He said it is honorable to trim a declining budget and he said he thinks it is incumbent upon the state not to commit itself to "fiscal dedication." He said most of the folks he has spoken to about the SeniorCare Program readily accept it. He added, "In that regard, that would make a good future adjustment for some of these Medicaid requirements that we're facing in the future." MR. SIMON continued: I think that you folks have hit on just about every high spot, and I compliment you for your effort on it, but I think that, at the present time, I wouldn't vote for ... reinitiating the [Alaska Longevity Bonus Program], and [would] more or less put our beans, shall we say, in the SeniorCare Program, which has a wider applicability, and it does have a [needs-based provision] attached [to it]. CHAIR LYNN stated that he, too, thinks the [SeniorCare Program] is a good one, and he indicated that there has been some discussion as to how the SeniorCare Program might be integrated, should the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program be refunded. He reminded everyone that HB 79 is not about the funding of the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program. That issue, he said, should bring up spirited debate. 9:06:53 AM MR. SICA emphasized that the intent is not to replace "the needs-based SeniorCare Program with the promised-based [Alaska Longevity Bonus Program] ...." 9:08:11 AM CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony. 9:08:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he understands the scope of bill; however, because of all of the references made [in the bill to statutes relating to] "all the qualification issues and all the legal ramifications," he reiterated his desire that the bill be heard by the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He said chances are that although he will not hold the bill back in committee, he may not support it on the House floor. 9:09:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL echoed that she will not hold her vote in committee; however, she emphasized her concern that the SeniorCare Program could be lost. 9:09:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated for the record that he supports HB 79, but he said he would like his legal questions answered. He noted that there are unfair provisions in the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program statutes that need to be addressed. 9:10:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he also will not hold the bill back, but encourages a referral to the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He stated he does not have a lot of confidence that, at some point, the court will not decide that everyone over the age of 65 qualifies [for the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program], which would result in the state having to take away the program once again. 9:11:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report HB 79, Version 25-LS0359\M, Cook, 2/7/07, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to state for the record that the fiscal note is in need of scrutiny and he would put "amend" on his recommendation. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection. CHAIR LYNN announced that [there being no further objection], CSHB 79(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|