Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/03/2007 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB198 | |
| HB61 | |
| HB92 | |
| HB166 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 166 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 198 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 61 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 3, 2007
1:38 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:38:51 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Les Gara
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Mary Nelson
Representative Bill Thomas, Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Karleen Jackson, Commissioner, Department of Health and
Social Services; Janet Clarke, Assistant Commissioner,
Division of Finance and Management Services, Department of
Health and Social Services; Ellie Fitzjarrald, Acting
Director, Division of Public Assistance, Department of
Health and Social Services; Rex Shattuck, Staff,
Representative Mark Neuman; Representative Ralph Samuels;
Jerry Burnett, Director, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Revenue; Rosemary Hagevig, Catholic
Community Services
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Kathy Hansen, Office of Victims Rights; Linda Lord Jenkins,
State Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman; Jeff Clarke, Vice
President, Rasmuson Foundation; Brenda Hewitt, United Way,
Southeast Alaska
SUMMARY
HB 198 "An Act establishing the Alaska senior assistance
payment program; repealing the senior care and
longevity bonus payment programs; and providing
for an effective date."
CSHB 198 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal
note #1 by the Department of Administration and
with four new fiscal notes by the Department of
Health and Social Services.
HB 61 "An Act relating to tax credits for cash
contributions by taxpayers that are accepted for
certain educational purposes, including vocational
education programs and courses at the secondary
school level; and providing for an effective
date."
CSHB 61 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with indeterminate
fiscal note #1 by the Department of Revenue.
HB 92 "An Act removing the victims' advocate and the
staff of the office of victims' rights from the
jurisdiction of the office of the ombudsman in the
legislative branch."
HB 92 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal note #1
by the Legislative Affairs Agency.
HB 166 "An Act relating to contributions from permanent
fund dividends to community foundations, to
certain educational organizations, and to certain
other charitable organizations that provide a
positive youth development program, workforce
development, aid to the arts, or aid and services
to the elderly, low-income individuals,
individuals in emergency situations, disabled
individuals, or individuals with mental illness;
and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 166 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal
note by the Department of Revenue.
1:39:23 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 198
"An Act establishing the Alaska senior assistance
payment program; repealing the senior care and
longevity bonus payment programs; and providing for an
effective date."
Representative Crawford MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3:
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "and longevity bonus programs"
Insert "program"
Page 1, line 14:
Delete "former"
Page 2, lines 12 - 19:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, lines 23 - 25:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, lines 14 - 17:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, lines 2 - 4:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 12. AS 47.45.320 is repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, line 12:
Delete "sec. 12"
Insert "sec. 9"
Page 9, line 19:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 4"
Page 9, line 25, through page 10, line 4:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 17. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
RETROACTIVITY AND REVIVAL. If secs. 1 - 12 of this
Act take effect after June 30, 2007,
(1) AS 47.45.300 - 47.45.390, as amended by
this Act, the repeal of AS 47.45.320, and secs. 11, 12,
and 14 of this Act, are retroactive to June 30, 2007;
and
(2) AS 47.45.300, 47.45.310, 47.45.330,
47.45.340, 47.45.350, 47.45.360, and 47.45.390, as
amended by this Act, are revived.
* Sec. 18. Sections 15, 16(b), and 17 of this Act
take effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c).
* Sec. 19. Except as provided in sec. 18 of this
Act, this Act takes effect June 30, 2007."
Representative Hawker OBJECTED.
Representative Crawford explained that he would like to
remove the mention of the longevity bonus from the bill. He
wanted to vote to pass HB 198 without killing the longevity
bonus.
Representative Hawker spoke against the amendment. He
related that the purpose of the bill is to replace the
longevity bonus and senior care payment programs. He
addressed the lowering of the poverty level rate and his
work with state agencies to develop policy direction for the
state in the future. He spoke in favor of the higher
poverty allowance because the battle of pitting the rich vs.
the poor is removed due to this legislation. He described
HB 198 as a very good policy decision, which melds the best
features of all ideas.
Representative Crawford disagreed that the senior benefits
payment program replaces the longevity bonus program, a
promise made to those eligible for the program.
1:46:05 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked if there are legal concerns regarding
reinstating the longevity bonus. Representative Hawker
recalled testimony in the Health and Social Services
Subcommittee that the attorney general's office had made the
determination that a statutory change would be required to
re-establish the longevity bonus program. He asked that the
neediest populations be served.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Crawford, Gara
OPPOSED: Joule, Kelly, Nelson, Thomas, Foster, Hawker,
Chenault, Meyer
Vice-Chair Stoltz was absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-8).
1:48:55 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #4:
Page 5, line 8,
Delete "175"
Insert "150"
Page 6, line 1,
Delete "175"
Insert "150"
Page 7, line 2,
Delete "175"
Insert "150"
Page 7, line 15,
Delete "175"
Insert "150"
Representative Hawker OBJECTED.
Representative Kelly explained how the amendment would
impact Denali Kid Care and the senior benefits payment
program by changing the proposed poverty level from 175
percent to 150 percent. His concern is that the state is
entering a period of deficit spending. He stated support
for the senior benefits program, but not at the level of 175
percent of poverty level. He maintained that this program
at this level is not sustainable. He emphasized that the
Department of Health and Social Services budget is
approaching $2 billion. He called for personal
responsibility. He requested a "yes" vote on Amendment #4.
1:52:53 PM
Representative Hawker reminded the committee that Alaska is
the wealthiest state in the nation and the legislature lacks
the vision and will to do "what's right by our communities."
This bill addresses the "bookends" of the state's
population, the most needy children and elders. He
maintained that front-end loading the health care system
saves future costs. He related how inflation has impacted
social services for children.
Representative Hawker addressed the benefits regarding
seniors. The most empowering way to give seniors assistance
is through a cash assistance payment. This bill is not
beyond Alaska's means. He opined that the two areas
addressed in HB 198 are the priorities needed at this time.
1:57:50 PM
Representative Joule testified against Amendment #4. He
brought up the fact that there is a sunset clause and the
matter can be re-addressed in five years. He recalled the
number of seniors who need these extra funds.
Representative Thomas also spoke against Amendment #4. He
opined that the bill is needed to help children and seniors.
2:00:01 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kelly, Foster, Meyer, Chenault
OPPOSED: Nelson, Thomas, Crawford, Gara, Hawker, Joule
Vice-Chair Stoltz was absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-6).
2:01:07 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #5:
Page 1, line 3, following "age":
Insert ", for pregnant women, and for disabled
persons; relating to the poverty guideline and cost
sharing for certain recipients of medical assistance"
Page 4, lines 29 - 31:
Delete "official poverty line applicable to a
family of that size according to the federal Office of
Management and Budget"
Insert "federal poverty guideline for Alaska set
by the United States Department of Health and Human
Services [OFFICIAL POVERTY LINE] applicable to a family
of that size [ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET]"
Page 5, line 31, through page 6, line 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"(14) pregnant women who are not
covered under (a) of this section and whose
household income does not exceed 175 percent of
the federal poverty guideline for Alaska set by
the United States Department of Health and Human
Services
[(A) $2,208 A MONTH IF THE
HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS OF TWO PERSONS;
(B) $2,782 A MONTH IF THE
HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS OF THREE PERSONS;
(C) $3,355 A MONTH IF THE
HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS OF FOUR PERSONS;
(D) $3,928 A MONTH IF THE
HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS OF FIVE PERSONS;
(E) $4,501 A MONTH IF THE
HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS OF SIX PERSONS;
(F) $5,074 A MONTH IF THE
HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS OF SEVEN PERSONS;
(G) $5,647 A MONTH IF THE
HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS OF EIGHT PERSONS;
(H) $5,647 A MONTH, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL $574 A MONTH FOR EACH EXTRA PERSON
ABOVE EIGHT PERSONS WHO IS IN THE HOUSEHOLD
IF THE HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS OF NINE PERSONS OR
MORE];"
Page 6, following line 13:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 47.07 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 47.07.022. Extended medical assistance
coverage for children; costs. (a) In addition to
the persons specified in AS 47.07.020, a person
who resides in the state and who meets the
criteria under (b) of this section is eligible for
extended medical assistance coverage equivalent to
the mandatory and optional services described
under AS 47.07.030 if the person submits an annual
application and contribution as specified in (c)
of this section.
(b) The department shall administer a
program of extended medical assistance coverage
for a person who is under 19 years of age and
whose household income is between 200 and 350
percent of the federal poverty guideline for
Alaska set by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services.
(c) The program administered under this
section must include an annual application and
sliding scale contribution, payable under terms
specified in regulations adopted by the
department. The regulations must
(1) include the option of an assignment
of an applicant's permanent fund dividend and the
permanent fund dividend of a parent, legal
guardian, or other authorized representative of an
applicant; and
(2) set the contribution amount for an
applicant in an amount that, except as provided in
(d) and (e) of this section, is not more than one-
half percent of the federal poverty guideline for
Alaska for the annual household income of a family
of two if the applicant's income is between 200
percent and 225 percent of the federal poverty
guideline for Alaska, and increases progressively
to not more than three percent for an annual
household income for a family of two that is
between 300 percent and 350 percent of the federal
poverty guideline for Alaska.
(d) In addition to the annual contribution
established under (c) of this section, the
department may impose a co-payment of not more
than 20 percent of medical services and
prescription drug costs covered under the program
for a person whose household income is between 250
and 350 percent of the federal poverty guideline
for Alaska.
(e) Except as provided in (f) of this
section, the department may set the contribution
amount for an applicant in an amount less than the
amount specified in (c) and (d) of this section if
a lesser amount is required to obtain federal
approval for the maximum level of federal
financial participation in the state's program
under 42 U.S.C. 1396 - 1396v (Title XIX, Social
Security Act) or 42 U.S.C. 1397aa - 1397jj (Title
XXI, Social Security Act), whichever is
applicable.
(f) The department may not provide for a
contribution amount less than the amounts provided
in (c) and (d) of this section for an applicant
whose household income is not less than 250
percent of the federal poverty guideline for
Alaska and who qualifies for coverage under a
separate health insurance policy if the policy
provides coverage that is equivalent to the
coverage available under AS 47.07.030 for that
applicant.
(g) The department may limit or exclude a
person's eligibility for coverage under this
section by regulation for an applicant who
qualifies for coverage, with or without payment of
an insurance premium, under a separate health
insurance policy if the policy
(1) provides coverage that is
equivalent to the coverage available under
AS 47.07.030 for the applicant;
(2) is provided at a cost that does not
create an undue hardship for the applicant or the
applicant's family; the department shall describe
in regulation the standards for finding an undue
hardship; and
(3) would exclude an applicant from
coverage under 42 U.S.C. 1396 - 1396v (Title XIX,
Social Security Act) or 42 U.S.C. 1397aa - 1397jj
(Title XXI, Social Security Act) or otherwise
jeopardize federal approval of the state plan
submitted under this section.
(h) The department may adopt regulations
necessary to implement this section.
* Sec. 7. AS 47.07.042(d) is amended to read:
(d) In addition to the requirements
established under (a) and (b) of this section, the
department shall [MAY] require premiums or cost-
sharing contributions from recipients who are
eligible for benefits under AS 47.07.022. The
[AS 47.07.020(b)(13) AND WHOSE HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS
GREATER THAN THE APPLICABLE AMOUNT SET OUT IN (f)
OF THIS SECTION. IF THE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES
PREMIUMS OR COST-SHARING CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER THIS
SUBSECTION, THE] department
(1) shall adopt in regulation a sliding
scale for those premiums or contributions based on
household income;
(2) may not exceed the maximums allowed
under federal law; and
(3) shall implement a system by which
the department or its designee collects those
premiums or contributions."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 19. AS 47.07.042(f) is repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 21. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
NOTIFICATION OF FEDERAL APPROVAL. The commissioner
of health and social services shall notify the revisor
of statutes when federal approval under sec. 23 of this
Act is obtained."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, line 12:
Delete "sec. 12"
Insert "sec. 14"
Page 9, line 19:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 9"
Page 9, line 22, following "proceed":
Insert "to seek federal approval and"
Page 9, line 27:
Delete "secs. 1 - 17"
Insert "secs. 1 - 5, 8 - 18, and 20"
Page 9, line 30:
Delete "secs. 14, 15, and 17"
Insert "secs. 16, 17, and 20"
Page 10, line 2:
Delete "Sections 18, 19(b), and 20"
Insert "Sections 21, 22, 23(b), and 24"
Page 10, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 26. Sections 6, 7, and 19 of this Act take
effect six months from the effective date of sec. 23 of
this Act or upon the approval of the changes
necessitated by secs. 6 and 7 of this Act by the United
States Department of Health and Human Services,
whichever is later."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 10, line 4:
Delete "sec. 21"
Insert "secs. 25 and 26"
Representative Hawker OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment is a
scaled-back version of a proposal of universal health
coverage for kids by Senator Wielechowski and himself. It
would take advantage of a 70 percent federal match. He
spoke about Denali Kid Care and the ability to buy into the
program once the 175 percent level has been reached. He
referred to page 3 of an attachment to Amendment #5 (copy on
file), a spreadsheet addressing modifications of the Denali
Kid Care program. He explained that this would extend
coverage to families that cannot afford health insurance,
and cost about $500 to $1,300 per person. He pointed out
that HB 198 would cost the state about $1.5 million more
than what is currently being paid. This amendment would
cost the state around $1.5 million more than that.
2:04:16 PM
Representative Gara spoke about the savings to the state
from covering the uninsured. Six other states are doing
some version of this plan. It would affect about 18,000
people in Alaska.
Representative Hawker pointed out that the amendment
introduces a significant new policy initiative into the
statutory framework. He emphasized that universal health
care coverage does not belong in this bill, which is an
attempt to "fix what we have", not to expand programs. The
amendment goes beyond his comfort level. He agreed that
this issue needs to be addressed, but not in this bill.
2:07:14 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked for clarification on an earlier
comment made by Representative Gara regarding if a higher
level of income results in higher health care needs.
Representative Gara explained that children's health
insurance costs the state about $1,200 to $1,400 per child
with the federal government picking up about 70 percent of
that. If higher income families are allowed to buy in, a
higher proportion with kids with significant health needs
are going to buy in, according to the Department of Health
and Social Services. Co-Chair Chenault assumed that there
are two scenarios; families with private health insurance,
or those who have no health insurance at all.
Representative Hawker pointed out that this discussion shows
how complex the topic of universal health care is.
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment #5.
2:10:35 PM
JANET CLARKE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DIVISION OF FINANCE
AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES, addressed the four fiscal notes by the department.
The fiscal note with the component labeled "Senior Care"
incorporates yesterday's Amendment #1. She related that the
total cost is $20,163,100 with the bulk of the costs for
benefits. The attachments describe the estimated case load
for FY 08, the dollar amount for each federal poverty
guideline amount, and the estimated benefit cost for each
level.
Co-Chair Chenault asked if the proposal is to roll over four
positions from the Senior Care program and hire two
additional case load managers. Ms. Clarke said that is
correct. The two additional staff are due to the increased
case load and the complexity of verification of income
eligibility.
Representative Hawker explained how the fiscal note relates
to the human services budget on the House Floor today. All
costs were removed from Senior Care expenses; none are
duplicated.
2:14:18 PM
Representative Kelly referenced the old Senior Care program
and wondered if there was a Medicaid match in the new
program. Ms. Clarke explained that the old Senior Care was
a combination of cash and a Medicaid match for the
prescription drug program, which was quite small. The
general fund for that program was about $10.6 million.
Representative Kelly summarized that the old and new
programs were very similar.
Ms. Clarke pointed out that the remaining three fiscal notes
relate to the Denali Kid Care program. She addressed the
Behavioral Health Medicaid Services component fiscal note, a
request for $455,900. It is an estimate of the number of
children who might need the services. Representative
Hawker asked how much is general funds and how much is
federal matching funds. Ms. Clarke replied that the federal
receipts are estimated at $311,100 and the general fund
match is $144,800.
2:17:13 PM
Ms. Clarke addressed the Health Care Services - Medicaid
Services fiscal note and clarified that $617,800 is general
funds and $1,577,600 is federal funds. She related that
these are all direct benefit programs.
Ms. Clarke spoke to the Public Assistance Field Services
fiscal note, the component where eligibility is determined.
The request is for one eligibility worker to be added. The
FY 08 costs are less because it is estimated that it will
take time to hire that individual.
Co-Chair Chenault asked for what percent of children the
state picks up costs. Ms. Clarke thought between 40 to 50
percent.
Representative Kelly asked if the federal match of 70
percent on the Denali Kid Care has increased or decreased
over the last five years. Ms. Clarke replied that it has
decreased slightly. In response to a question from
Representative Kelly, Ms. Clarke said the fiscal note takes
the decrease into account.
2:20:45 PM
Representative Gara asked if the general fund cost of Kid
Care at 175 percent is about $750,000. Ms. Clarke said
$784,000. Representative Gara asked how many kids would be
at 175 percent and how many would be at 200 percent. Ms.
Clarke reported that there would be just under 1,300
children at 175 percent, and double that at 200 percent.
Co-Chair Meyer expressed gratitude to Representative Hawker
for his work on the bill.
2:22:39 PM
Representative Foster thanked Representative Hawker, also.
He pointed out the twelve additional sponsors of the bill,
including himself.
Representative Crawford expressed strong feelings against
the legislation. He maintained that the longevity bonus is
a separate issue. He indicated that he is in a difficult
position when asked to vote for the bill.
2:24:30 PM
Representative Thomas reported that he did not feel the same
way, even as a former co-sponsor for the longevity bonus
bill, because the Pioneers of Alaska and AARP expressed
support for this legislation. He said he feels comfortable
voting in support of the bill.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 198 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 198 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal note #1 by the
Department of Administration and with four new fiscal notes
by the Department of Health and Social Services.
2:26:13 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 61
"An Act relating to tax credits for cash contributions
by taxpayers that are accepted for certain educational
purposes, including vocational education programs and
courses at the secondary school level; and providing
for an effective date."
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1:
Page 1, line 12
After: "association;"
Delete: "and"
Page 1, line 14
Delete: "."
Insert: "; and"
Page 2, line 1
Insert: "(3) a state-operated vocational technical
education and training school."
Page 2, line 27
After: "association;"
Delete: "and"
Page 2, line 29
Delete: "."
Insert: "; and"
Page 2, line 30
Insert: "(3) a state-operated vocational technical
education and training school."
Page 3, line 23
After: "association;"
Delete: "and"
Page 3, line 25
Delete: "."
Insert: "; and"
Page 3, line 26
Insert: "(3) a state-operated vocational technical
education and training school."
Page 4, line 18
After: "association;"
Delete: "and"
Page 4, line 20
Delete: "."
Insert: "; and"
Page 4, line 21
Insert: "(3) a state-operated vocational technical
education and training school."
Page 5, line 10
After: "association;"
Delete: "and"
Page 5, line 12
Delete: "."
Insert: "; and"
Page 5, line 13
Insert: "(3) a state-operated vocational technical
education and training school."
Page 6, line 2
After: "association;"
Delete: "and"
Page 6, line 4
Delete: "."
Insert: "; and"
Page 6, line 5
Insert: "(3) a state-operated vocational technical
education and training school."
Page 6, line 26
After: "association;"
Delete: "and"
Page 6, line 28
Delete: "."
Insert: "; and"
Page 6, line 29
Insert: "(3) a state-operated vocational technical
education and training school."
Make any conforming changes as necessary.
Representative Hawker OBJECTED.
REX SHATTUCK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, explained that
the amendment addresses the concern that AVTEC was not
included in the bill. Amendment #1 inserts "a state-
operated vocational technical education and training school"
in seven places in the bill.
Representative Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Meyer spoke about the indeterminate fiscal note.
2:29:05 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 61 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 61 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with indeterminate fiscal note #1 by the
Department of Revenue.
2:29:33 PM
At-ease.
2:32:26 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 92
"An Act removing the victims' advocate and the staff of
the office of victims' rights from the jurisdiction of
the office of the ombudsman in the legislative branch."
Vice Chair Stoltze, co-sponsor, spoke about his and
Representative Samuels' work on victim's rights. He
explained how the first ombudsman position was determined.
The intent of the bill is to exempt the Office of Victim's
Rights (OVR) from jurisdiction of the Ombudsman's Office.
He related the purpose and mission of the (OVR).
2:36:26 PM
Representative Kelly noted the zero fiscal note. Vice Chair
Stoltze explained how the OVR is funded by PFD's of
convicted felons. He emphasized that the bill is not about
increasing responsibilities in the OVR.
2:38:20 PM
Representative Crawford wondered about the history behind
the need for the bill. Vice Chair Stoltze explained that
the problem is a clash within agencies. The caseload for
the ombudsman consists predominantly of prisoners and the
caseload for the OVR is victims. There are some inherent
conflicts of interest. This bill clarifies the original
legislative intent.
In response to a question from Representative Gara, Vice
Chair Stoltze replied that the selection of the ombudsman
was not a "political" process.
2:41:24 PM
KATHY HANSEN, OFFICE OF VICTIMS RIGHTS (OVR), testified in
favor of HB 92. She explained that OVR is a satellite
office of the legislative branch, was created to assist
crime victims with legal assistance free of charge, and is
patterned after the ombudsman's office. She referred to a
case in district court and highlighted conflicts between the
two agencies. She noted statutes which prevent attorneys
from accessing victims' files. OVR has access to records
such as active criminal investigations and clemency files,
which the ombudsman does not. She related an inappropriate
use of the ombudsman's office.
Ms. Hansen emphasized that the OVR reports to the
legislature and that there is oversight by the Alaska Bar
Association. Any fiscal impact would be negative, as there
would be no duplication of efforts.
2:47:52 PM
LINDA LORD JENKINS, STATE OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, spoke in opposition to the legislation. She
reiterated that the legislation resulted from the sexual
assault of a mentally impaired individual, who felt that OVR
did not adequately review the complaint. She observed that
the Office of the State Ombudsman issued a subpoena, which
has not been honored by OVR. She noted that they continue
to refer individuals to OVR, but emphasized that
independence is needed to allow review of OVR. She
suggested that OVR statutes do not allow OVR to speak to
legislators about complaints without the victim's consent.
She added that OVR is required to keep confidentiality and
that legislative oversight would not fall within the narrow
exception in AS 24.65.120. She urged a legal opinion by
legislative counsel regarding OVR's ability to discuss
specific case information with legislators. It is not
within the power of the Office of the State Ombudsman to
contravene a discretionary action taken by a governmental
agency. She related further the reasons behind that opinion
and when alternate courses of action could be taken. She
maintained that the large caseload has led to complaints.
She maintained it is not an issue of importance between the
agencies, or a turf war, but that the ombudsman does have
authorization to investigate complaints against OVR.
2:55:15 PM
Representative Gara questioned if the concern investigated
was valid. Ms. Jenkins stated that they were not able to
investigate the case because OVR has not released records.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, co-sponsor explained that the
constitutional amendment in 1994 - the Victim's Rights
Amendment - led to the creation of the OVR, which was
intended to be an ombudsman's office and answer directly to
the legislature. He maintained that the intent was clear.
The bill makes it clear that both agencies answer to the
legislature. The intent was for them to be sister agencies
with separate functions.
2:59:24 PM
In response to a question by Representative Gara, Ms.
Jenkins said she could not answer regarding the substance of
the complaint, but noted that there had only been two
complaints about the quality of OVR's reviews. The prior
complaint was decided in support of OVR. Representative
Gara spoke in sympathy for the ombudsman's position, but
also understood the reasoning behind the bill.
3:02:21 PM
In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Ms.
Jenkins reiterated her concern that there is a gap in review
for the investigation of complaints regarding OVR.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HB 92 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 92 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with zero fiscal note #1 by the
Legislative Affairs Agency.
3:05:47 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 166
"An Act relating to contributions from permanent fund
dividends to community foundations, to certain
educational organizations, and to certain other
charitable organizations that provide a positive youth
development program, workforce development, aid to the
arts, or aid and services to the elderly, low-income
individuals, individuals in emergency situations,
disabled individuals, or individuals with mental
illness; and providing for an effective date."
Representative Thomas spoke in support of HB 166, which
would attempt to increase private philanthropy in Alaska by
giving people an option of donating a portion of their PFD
to their favorite charity. Alaskans who make $100,000 or
more, rank among the lowest in the nation as far as
percentage of income donated to charities. The legislation
allows a PFD check off, which should allow charities to
benefit.
Representative Thomas related that HB 166 also requires that
the charity meet certain criteria before it can be place on
the list. The Rasmuson Foundation has pledged to fully fund
the administrative costs of the program for the first three
years of the program, creating a zero fiscal impact on the
state in these crucial beginning years. He pointed out that
the bill would sunset in 2010.
Representative Thomas noted that they have had several
requests for charities to be included on the list. There
are approximately 5,000 non-profit charities.
Representative Thomas urged the committee to support this
bill.
3:10:35 PM
ROSEMARY HAGEVIG, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, stated
support for last year's version of the bill, as well as for
the current legislation. She thanked Representative Thomas
and the Rasmuson Foundation. She reported that addressing
the needs of the needy in our population is a shared
responsibility, not only by the agencies and government, but
also by society as a whole. The bill would provide a
convenient way for the general population to help.
3:12:13 PM
BRENDA HEWITT, UNITED WAY, SOUTHEAST ALSAKA, testified in
favor of the bill. She pointed out the zero fiscal note.
JEFF CLARKE, VICE PRESIDENT, RASMUSON FOUNDATION, testified
in support of the legislation.
Representative Hawker asked if the commitment is for the
Rasmuson Foundation to underwrite the first three years of
the program. Mr. Clarke said yes.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if it is the same legislation as last
year. Mr. Clarke replied that it is the same except the
eligibility for participating organizations has been
broadened.
Vice Chair Stoltze wondered about anticipated costs. Mr.
Clarke asked which costs he is referring to. Vice Chair
Stoltze wanted information about continuing costs after
three years. Mr. Clarke said he could not answer the
question at this time.
3:17:59 PM
JERRY BURNETT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, brought attention to a
couple of issues. The biggest concern is the possibility of
not being able to implement the program by the FY 08
dividend season due to technical problems. The department
does not want to have a problem with incorrectly paying
dividends due to this legislation. He suggested having the
legislation take effect for the FY 09 dividend season. The
second issue is that the legislation allows for dollar
amount payments as well as percentage amounts. He
maintained that there are problems with allowing a
percentage amount.
3:20:31 PM
Mr. Burnett addressed the fiscal note by the Department of
Revenue for $320,300. It assumes that the Rasmussen
Foundation would pay the costs of program implementation of
$45,000 in FY 07, and about $91,000 a year the next two
years. The bill has a sunset date of 2010. On-going costs
beyond the three years would be expected to be picked up as
administrative costs against the charities receiving
contributions. If the bill moves, refinements can be made
to the fiscal note in the future.
Representative Gara asked if the bill, as written, allows
for passing future costs, beyond three years, on to the
charities. Mr. Burnett replied that there is a sunset, and
it also does not allow PFD funds to pay for the program.
Representative Gara asked if the bill continues, if the
administrative charge would go to the individual agency.
Mr. Burnett thought the bill did not have a provision for
that at this point.
Representative Gara suggested reminding people how much they
gave each year to promote further giving. Mr. Burnett said
that a 1099 would have information as to where the money
went. Mr. Burnett thought the suggestion was feasible as
part of the program.
3:24:34 PM
Representative Hawker asked about limiting the mechanism to
fixed dollar amounts rather than percentages. He wondered
where that idea came from. Mr. Burnett thought it came up
in State Affairs. Representative Hawker agreed with the
idea.
Vice Chair Stoltze asked why "for profit" organizations are
not included. Mr. Burnett reported that that discussion
also took place in State Affairs. He said that is a policy
decision, not the Department of Revenue's call.
Representative Crawford asked what happens if one does not
itemize on income tax. He wondered how this contribution
would be treated. Mr. Burnett said it would be allowable as
a deduction and would not show up as income.
3:28:43 PM
Representative Thomas MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment
#1, on page 1, line 12, add "more" after "$100 or" and
delete all reference to percentages. Co-Chair Meyer
OBJECTED.
Representative Gara asked for clarification regarding if
more than $100 could be donated. Representative Thomas said
yes.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Hawker OBJECTED. He thought "or more" should
be further defined.
Representative Gara suggested "any amount up to the value of
the dividend."
3:31:31 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked for Mr. Burnett's opinion. Mr. Burnett
thought it should be in clear increments, the simpler the
better, up to the value of the dividend. He said he could
live with the conceptual amendment.
Representative Hawker restated that the intent of the
conceptual amendment is to provide a fixed increment up to
the amount of the dividend. The sponsor and the department
can work together to determine the appropriate increment.
Representative Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION to adopt
Conceptual Amendment #1.
Representative Kelly suggested having a minimum amount.
Representative Thomas said $25 is the minimum.
Representative Kelly asked what happens if a mathematical
mistake is made.
Representative Hawker noted that the $25 floor was already
fixed in statute. There are specific provisions already in
the bill to address mathematical mistakes.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Conceptual Amendment #1
was adopted.
3:35:06 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment #2 to
change the date to begin in FY 09.
Representative Thomas OBJECTED. He argued that the
legislation should begin as soon as possible.
Mr. Burnett reiterated that there are some technical
concerns with implementing the bill due to the ongoing
rewrite of the PFD system. This bill cannot take priority
over getting an online application that works. He noted
that the department is working with the Rasmussen Foundation
to make the bill work.
Representative Thomas requested to be updated on the
problems at the Department of Revenue. Mr. Burnett related
that PFD problems in the past have nothing to do with the
technical rewrite problems of the online application system.
He described a capital project regarding rewriting the
system.
3:39:35 PM
Representative Hawker shared the anxieties of the department
over putting the bill into action. He suggested extending
the date.
Representative Thomas suggested adding some intent language.
Representative Hawker suggested withdrawing Conceptual
Amendment #2.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW Conceptual Amendment #2.
3:41:38 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment
#3:
"It is the intent of the legislature that the
department does its absolute best to accomplish the
requirements of the bill for the 2008 dividend
distribution. However, the legislature recognizes that
if there are insurmountable technical impediments to
achieving that date that the effective (applicability)
dates would shift back one year: 2009, 2010, and 2011."
(In the event that the applicability date is shifted,
the sunset date should also be shifted.)
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
3:43:06 PM
Representative Foster thanked the Rasmuson Foundation for
their contributions.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 166 (FIN), as
amended, out of Committee, with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal note.
CSHB 166 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal note by the
Department of Revenue.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:44 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|