Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/12/2024 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB219 | |
| SB170 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 12, 2024
1:35 p.m.
1:35:36 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Dan Saddler, Sponsor; David Kirstien,
Administrative Operations Manager, Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development; Griffen Sukkaew, Staff, Senator Scott
Kawasaki; Joe Hayes, Staff, Senator Scott Kawasaki; Deb
Ethridge, Director, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Jamie Kokoszka, Program Coordinator, Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education, Wasilla; Mystie Rail,
Executive Director, Assistive Technology of Alaska,
Anchorage; Melodie Wilterdink, Staff, Representative Dan
Saddler; Marge Stoneking, Advocacy Director, AARP Alaska,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 219 REPEAL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN PROGRAM
HB 219 was REPORTED out of committee with nine
"do pass" recommendations and one "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one
previously published zero note: FN1 (LWF).
SB 170 EXTND SR BENEFITS; REPEAL LONGEVITY BONUS
SB 170 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 219
"An Act repealing the assistive technology loan
guarantee and interest subsidy program; and providing
for an effective date."
1:37:08 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked the bill sponsor to review the
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER, SPONSOR, thanked the committee
for hearing the bill that would repeal the Assistive
Technology Loan Fund. He explained that the legislation
would eliminate a well-intentioned loan program that was
instituted many years ago but had not had its intended use.
The bill would end the loan fund and appropriate the
funding to a nonprofit that could make the grants and use
the funds as originally intended to assist Alaskans with
disabilities with obtaining assistive technology allowing
them to live, work, and go to school in Alaska.
Representative Saddler explained that a two-step process
was needed to implement the intent of the bill. The first
was to appropriate the approximately $446,000 remaining in
the Assistive Technology Loan Fund to the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) Vocational
Rehabilitation Special Projects Section, which would occur
in the final passage of the operating budget. He detailed
that the action was contingent on the passage of HB 218
[219], which would repeal the fund.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the committee had heard the bill
once before.
1:39:05 PM
Representative Hannan remarked that the bill number before
the committee specified HB 219. She noted that
Representative Saddler had referred to HB 218. She asked
for verification that she was looking at the correct bill.
Representative Saddler confirmed it was HB 219.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
JAMIE KOKOSZKA, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON
DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL EDUCATION, WASILLA (via
teleconference), thanked the committee for hearing the
bill. She spoke in support of the legislation. She detailed
that the Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special
Education (GCDSE) along with the Statewide Independent
Living Council (SILC) presented a position paper in support
of the recommendations from the Alaska Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) and the Assistive
Technology of Alaska (ATLA). She relayed that GCDSE
believed assistive technology (AT) was critical for
Alaskans with disabilities to live a productive, healthy,
independent, and dignified life. She detailed that
assistive technology allowed individuals to participate in
education and the labor market. She reported that the need
for assistive technology had only increased as the internet
and other technologies had become indispensable to
accessing services and participating in work and community.
Ms. Kokoszka stated that GCDSE believed ATLA was the best
organization to take over the remaining funds of the
restricted Title 1 funding. She detailed that it aligned
with ATLA's current AT Act services, which could include
developing new programs that adhered to AT Act
requirements. Additionally, ATLA had a proven track record
of responsibly managing the funding for this purpose and
getting AT into the hands of Alaskans that needed it. She
noted that the council's position paper (copy on file)
included additional information about why individuals
needed the technology. She highlighted that the individual
in the photo shown on the council's position paper was one
of the council's staff members and he was using a one-
handed keyboard. She thanked the committee for its time and
consideration.
MYSTIE RAIL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY OF
ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), relayed that she
was available for questions.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
1:43:23 PM
Representative Coulombe referenced a memorandum provided by
Representative Saddler in response to House Finance
Committee member questions (copy on file). She noted that
one of the answers specified that the funds avoided being
swept because they consisted of federal funds. She
highlighted a sentence in the document specifying that
earnings on the fund were restricted. She asked if there
were any issues with moving the money because it contained
federal funds. She asked if the interest was allowed to be
used for the purpose identified in the bill.
Representative Saddler answered that because the origins of
the fund were kind of "lost in the mists of time" he could
not give a clear answer or cite a federal chapter; however,
he believed the fact that the fund had not been swept in
its lifetime of 20 or more years was tertiary evidence that
the fund was not sweepable. He stated that the best answer
he could provide was that the funds were restricted and not
sweepable.
Representative Coulombe asked if there was an issue with
doing what the sponsor wanted due to the federal funds.
Representative Saddler deferred the question to the Mr.
Mayes with department.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the individual was not online.
Representative Saddler deferred the question to his staff.
MELODIE WILTERDINK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER (via
teleconference), replied that DVR reached out to the
appropriate federal department and had received approval
for the funds to be moved to the nonprofit ATLA in order to
achieve the original purpose of the funds.
1:46:20 PM
DAVID KIRSTIEN, ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS MANAGER, DIVISION
OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, confirmed that the federal
government had given authorization to transfer the
Assistive Technology Grant Fund balance to ATLA.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal note.
Mr. Kirstien reviewed the DLWD fiscal note. He relayed that
the fund was established in 1997 with federal receipts from
the assistive technology federal grants. The program
allowed for loans from a commercial bank to be made to
qualified individuals for assistive technology equipment.
The fund had not been utilized since 2014 and was no longer
used by the department. The bill would make the funds
available to the non-state entity ATLA to provide assistive
technology equipment to Alaskans with disabilities. He
added that the fiscal note was zero. The bill did not
modify the loan fund and it did not impact any regulations.
Representative Galvin asked if any past loans made from the
fund had already been cleared. She wondered if there was
any money owed that may come in and what would happen to
it.
Mr. Kirstien answered that there were no remaining loans
outstanding. The last loan was in 2014 and had been paid
off in 2018 or 2019.
Representative Galvin wanted to ensure there would be no
further payments on any loans coming in because they had
all been cleared.
Mr. Kirstien replied affirmatively. He relayed that the
fund had been used to guarantee loans through the
commercial bank; therefore, there had not been any funds
going in for the loan.
Co-Chair Foster noted that no amendments had been received
on the bill.
Co-Chair Edgmon MOVED to REPORT HB 219 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 219 was REPORTED out of committee with nine "do pass"
recommendations and one "no recommendation" recommendation
and with one previously published zero note: FN1 (LWF).
Representative Saddler thanked the committee.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 170(FIN)
"An Act relating to the Alaska longevity bonus program
and the Alaska senior benefits payment program; and
providing for an effective date."
1:50:29 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked the sponsor's staff to provide a
review of the bill.
GRIFFEN SUKKAEW, STAFF, SENATOR SCOTT KAWASAKI, relayed
that the Senate floor was still meeting, and the senator
could not be present. He reviewed the sponsor statement
(copy on file):
Senate Bill 170 would extend the Senior Benefits
Program indefinitely, ensuring continued support for
low-income seniors across Alaska. The successor to the
Longevity Bonus created in 1972, the Senior Benefits
Program would end in June 2024 without legislative
action.
The Senior Benefits Program protects low-income
seniors by providing them with modest monthly cash
assistance to pay for expenses like food, heating,
electricity, transportation and prescription
medication. The program was established in 2007 and
currently aids over 10,000 Alaskans aged 65 and older
with incomes at 75, 100 and 175 percent of federal
poverty level. Subject to appropriation from the
Alaska State Legislature, assistance can range from
$76 to $250 a month for eligible seniors.
In September 2017, the House Health and Social
Services Committee held a statewide listening session
for Senior Benefit recipients and their advocates.
Hundreds of Alaskans spoke of the need to preserve
this program to enhance their way of life. This
program protects seniors who have spent a lifetime
building our great state. It lends a hand to low-
income seniors who need assistance to help make ends
meet.
Terminating this program would put thousands of
seniors at risk of losing their means for maintaining
a healthy lifestyle. I respectfully request your
support to continue this vital program.
Mr. Sukkaew reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1: Repeals the still existing statutes that
established the Longevity Bonus Program.
Section 5: Removes the sunset provision for the Senior
Benefits Program. This makes the program permanent and
no longer needing periodic legislative
reauthorization.
1:54:09 PM
JOE HAYES, STAFF, SENATOR SCOTT KAWASAKI, introduced
himself and was available for questions.
Representative Galvin appreciated the legislation. She
stated she had many elders in the state. She referenced the
Senior Benefits Program fact sheet (copy on file), which
specified that payments were not available to seniors
living in specific institutions including prison or jail,
Alaska Pioneers Home, Alaska Veterans Home, nursing home,
and public or private institution for mental illness. She
understood the first several institutions because seniors
were being fed, had supports, housing, and access to
healthcare. She was concerned about the language pertaining
to a public or private institution for mental illness. She
wondered if an elder was in a home for other reasons such
as a disability. She asked for clarity.
Mr. Sukkaew deferred the question to the department.
DEB ETHRIDGE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, answered that the terminology was a
bit antiquated, but it generally referred to a state
institution such as the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API)
or a facility that may be specifically for individuals with
developmental disability. She explained that the language
pertained to an institution versus a home. She would need
to clarify.
Representative Galvin what Ms. Etheridge meant by her
statement that she needed to clarify.
Ms. Ethridge replied that she had misspoken. She wanted to
make sure the committee understood the language did not
mean an individual in a home; it applied to someone in an
institution. She did not believe there was any need to
clarify additionally in the bill.
Representative Galvin asked if an institution meant someone
without the faculties to be able to use the money. She
thought about some elders living in an assisted living home
and suffering from depression, which some may say was a
mental disease. She asked if it would keep a person from
enjoying the Senior Benefits Program.
Ms. Ethridge responded that a home and community based
setting was not considered institutional. She explained
that an institution could be a nursing facility or nursing
home.
1:59:27 PM
Representative Galvin considered seniors living in the
Pioneer Home with some type of a mental health issue. She
asked if it meant the individuals would not receive
benefits.
Ms. Ethridge answered that individuals residing in the
Alaska Pioneer Home did not receive senior benefits. She
noted that the individuals had all of their needs provided
for in the Pioneer Home, which was similar to a nursing
home.
Representative Coulombe remarked that the sponsor statement
in her bill packet specified that the bill would extend the
program for eight years. She remarked that Mr. Sukkaew had
stated the bill would extend the program indefinitely. She
asked for clarification.
Mr. Sukkaew apologized and stated that he may have sent the
wrong version [of the sponsor statement]. The bill was
amended in the Senate Finance Committee to make the program
indefinite as opposed to an eight-year extension under the
original bill.
Representative Coulombe asked for verification that the
bill did not make any changes to how allocations were given
out. She asked for confirmation that the only changes
included the removal of the sunset date and the removal of
the longevity bonus wording.
Mr. Sukkaew confirmed that Representative Coulombe was
correct.
2:01:48 PM
Representative Stapp asked who distributed the cash
payments to seniors. He asked about income brackets.
Ms. Ethridge answered that a senior or individual would
apply for the benefit similarly to other public assistance
programs. Individuals could mail an application or come
into the office. She hoped that individuals would be able
to apply online one day soon. She elaborated that the
application was processed by Department of Health (DOH)
eligibility technicians. She relayed that most if not all
of the department's eligibility technicians processed all
programs for the Division of Public Assistance (DPA).
Technicians determined whether an applicant was eligible
and added the income level in which a person was eligible.
Technicians processed the applications within the
department's legacy system EIS [Eligibility Information
System]. Payments to eligible individuals were made through
the EIS system.
Representative Stapp understood that EIS was the
department's Cobalt system. He asked if the department was
integrating the program onto its new cloud-based system.
Ms. Ethridge responded that the intention was to move all
programs off of the Cobalt legacy mainframe system starting
with Medicaid categories and working its way through SNAP
[Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] and other
programs. She explained that it would be a cloud-based
module.
Representative Stapp asked who distributed the money after
an individual was approved for benefit payments. He asked
if the funds were distributed by DOH or the Department of
Revenue (DOR).
Ms. Ethridge answered that DOH authorized the benefits
through EIS.
Representative Stapp asked who distributed the funds.
Ms. Ethridge responded that individuals could chose to have
their benefits directly deposited. She detailed that some
cash benefits were issued through an EBT [Electronic
Benefits Transfer] card and some benefits could be
distributed via a check.
Representative Stapp asked if DOR issued 1099s to
individuals receiving cash payments.
Ms. Ethridge answered that she did not know and would
follow up on the question.
Co-Chair Foster noted that an individual with AARP was
online and would be providing invited testimony later in
the meeting.
2:05:12 PM
Representative Hannan asked how often a participant had to
requalify [for benefits].
Ms. Ethridge answered that there was an annual
reauthorization/application renewal.
Representative Hannan asked if there was anything that
would prevent a longer authorization period. She remarked
that typically seniors on fixed income did not start making
more income or go off of an assistance program as they
aged. She asked if statute or regulation limited it to one-
year qualification and eligibility. She understood there
were federal guidelines for many of the benefit programs.
Ms. Ethridge answered that it was a regulation the division
had the authority to manage.
Representative Hannan asked how long it had been since the
monthly benefit payments had been increased.
Ms. Ethridge answered that the benefit level had not been
changed since 2017. She noted that in April 2024 the
poverty level changed, changing those eligible for the
program.
Representative Hannan asked if the rate was determined via
regulation or statute. For example, she wondered if the
department had the ability to increase the payment from
$250 to $500 in response to a high rate of inflation.
Ms. Ethridge answered that the rate was in regulation.
2:07:25 PM
Representative Josephson asked if the governor's FY 25
operating budget included the $23 million. He noted that
the law was set to expire at the end of the coming fiscal
year.
Mr. Hayes replied that the increment was not included in
the budget. The Senate Finance Committee had taken steps to
look at items with attached fiscal notes to address the
issue.
Representative Josephson noted that the AARP letter
specified that the program expired next summer. He asked
for verification that the program would expire in the
coming summer.
Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively.
Representative Tomaszewski looked at the DOH fiscal note
and observed that the department anticipated an increase of
about $500,000 annually going forward. He asked if the
increase was a result of an expectation of an increasing
number of eligible recipients. Alternatively, he wondered
if the increase was anticipating an inflationary increase
in payments.
Ms. Ethridge responded that the increase reflected
anticipated growth in program participation.
Co-Chair Foster moved to invited testimony.
MARGE STONEKING, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, AARP ALASKA, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), relayed that AARP was a nonpartisan,
nonprofit member organization serving the 50-plus
population. The agency's purpose was to empower people to
be able to choose how they live as they age. She relayed
that AARP had a strong commitment to protecting financial
resilience for older adults. While most older Alaskans were
self-supporting, some needed financial assistance to remain
independent. She elaborated that senior safety net programs
like the Senior Benefits Program provide foundational
support to help low income elders remain in their homes and
out of more costly levels of care. For example, individuals
qualifying for the largest senior benefit amount of $250
per month could have income of no more than $1,139 per
month. In Alaska, the average social security retired
worker benefit was $1,485 per month. Older Alaskans
eligible for the Senior Benefits Program fell below that
average, which meant their lifetime earnings were less than
average.
Ms. Stoneking elaborated that older Alaskans most likely to
benefit from an extension of the Senior Benefits Program
based on historical participation were women. Historically,
Senior Benefits Program beneficiaries had been mostly
women. She stated it was no secret that women earned less
over the course of their working lives and made up the vast
majority of unpaid family caregivers and often outlived
their husbands. Many lower wage workers, Alaskans who did
not make as much during their time working, had more than
one job, but with Alaska's higher cost of living were
unable to accumulate much; therefore, they were more likely
to be receiving minimal social security benefits. Rural
Alaskans, especially those living subsistence lifestyles,
were less likely to have made cash income and if they
received social security at all, their benefits were often
very low. The loss of the Senior Benefits Program would
hurt many Alaskans living in remote villages.
Ms. Stoneking highlighted that the oldest Alaskans were the
ones most likely to spend increasing amounts of their
retirement budgets on healthcare costs, which may result in
financial instability and make it difficult to afford other
basic living expenses including housing, food, and heat.
Loss of income to the specific population increased risk of
losing independence and hastened moves to much more costly
levels of care. She relayed that AARP supported the bill to
extend the Alaska Senior Benefits Program.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Ms. Stoneking for her testimony.
2:13:00 PM
Representative Stapp directed a question to the department.
He asked for the number of applications per year for the
program, the number of people who applied annually compared
to the number of people approved, and the average
processing time of each application. He directed his second
question to Mr. Hayes. He looked at the history of the
program and stated the appropriation was shorted based off
of the total. He thought that the money paid out to
eligible individuals appeared to have been prorated in
certain fiscal years. He wondered if it was the standard
procedure if the budget did not reflect the fiscal note.
Mr. Hayes answered affirmatively. He stated that the
funding was up to legislative appropriation annually.
Representative Coulombe remarked that assets did not count
towards income eligibility and most seniors did not have a
regular job. She thought it sounded like social security
was counted. She asked what determined eligibility. She
asked if investment income counted. She was interested in a
definition between assets and income.
Ms. Ethridge answered that in order to be eligible for the
program a person had to be 65 or older, fall within the
income level, be an Alaskan resident and U.S. citizen or
qualified alien, have a social security number or proof
that one had been applied for, and have countable income
that did not exceed the income limits. She noted she could
provide the income level brackets.
Representative Coulombe was trying to determine what
counted as income if assets were not included.
Ms. Ethridge answered it was more a definition of asset,
which could be a home, car, or savings account. She noted
that those things would not be considered income.
Representative Coulombe asked if social security benefits
counted as income.
Ms. Ethridge responded affirmatively.
2:16:36 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon relayed that there was a bill in committee
dealing with SNAP benefits. He did not know whether there
was any interplay between the SNAP legislation and the
Public Assistance Program and eligibility criteria in terms
of assets. He asked if Ms. Etheridge was familiar with the
other legislation and knew enough to speak to any
connection between the two.
Ms. Ethridge answered not necessarily. She stated that
senior benefits were counted when looking at a SNAP benefit
level, but there was no other direct relationship.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked about how the Permanent Fund Dividend
(PFD) tied into the program. He considered eligibility
criteria and exemptions under income. He asked if PFDs and
Alaska Native regional dividends were counted as income
under the federal poverty guidelines.
Ms. Ethridge answered that she would follow up with the
information.
Co-Chair Edgmon noted there was a hold harmless provision.
He asked Mr. Hayes to comment.
Mr. Hayes replied that there was a hold harmless provision
for the PFD for individuals receiving TANF [Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families] and other benefits. The
provision was in place to ensure individuals did not lose
their benefits as a result of the PFD payment. He believed
the hold harmless provision would have the same effect for
senior benefits.
2:19:08 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon surmised there were likely no snowbirds
taking advantage of the Senior Benefits Program. He
believed in theory program beneficiaries were year-round
Alaskan residents.
Mr. Hayes responded that under the previous longevity bonus
program there were seniors who were snowbirds and were
eligible for the funding. However, the new Senior Benefits
Program applied to less fortunate Alaskan seniors. He
asserted that the individuals did not make enough money to
be snowbirds.
Co-Chair Edgmon looked at page 3 of the Senior Benefits
Program document (copy on file). He observed that in 2023
there were only 1,917 seniors who were eligible to receive
the maximum benefit of $250. He was interested in seeing
the demographics involved in the payment tiers. He believed
many of the recipients receiving the higher payment level
would be located in rural Alaska. He remarked that the
senior population was the fastest growing segment of the
state's population. He was in strong support of the
legislation. He hoped the state would give every bit of
help possible, particularly in rural Alaska where costs
were rising exponentially.
2:21:32 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted that Co-Chair Johnson had joined the
meeting.
Representative Tomaszewski considered that one reason there
were more women receiving benefits from the program was due
to their longer lifespan. He referenced snowbirds and asked
how many days out of the state would disqualify an
individual from receiving the benefit. He asked if it was
similar to the PFD where an individual could only be out of
state for a certain period of time.
Mr. Hayes deferred to his colleague.
Mr. Sukkaew replied that AS 47.45.030 applied to the
longevity bonus and he believed it also applied to the
Senior Benefits Program. He read from the statute:
After qualification, a recipient shall notify the
commissioner of health and social services when a
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 Tomaszewski looked at the cost of
$23,542,000 for FY 25. He if the money was currently in the
FY 25 budget. He asked where the money would come from.
Mr. Hayes responded that the Senate Finance Committee had
looked at the policy bills with large fiscal note bills and
he believed the committee had put aside money to address
the Senior Benefits Program for FY 25.
Representative Tomaszewski asked Mr. Hayes to repeat his
response.
Mr. Hayes complied.
Co-Chair Edgmon noted that the $23 million attached to the
fiscal note was part of a spending agreement between the
House and Senate. He stated that presumably the bill had to
pass [for the funding to be appropriated]. He highlighted
that the PFD program allowed individuals to be out of state
for 180 days. He noted that the 60-day window was more
restrictive. He added there was an exemption for medical
care in the event a person had to be out of state for more
than 60 days due to a terminal illness or other medical
reason. He noted that there were around 20 exemptions for
PFD eligibility including military considerations whereas
the Senior Benefits Program eligibility requirements were
far more restrictive. He stated there were many ups and
downs over the course of the program's life beginning in
1972. He highlighted there were years the program had not
been funded. He referenced debate over the PFD and
following the law and pointed out that the Senior Benefits
Program had not been funded in some years as well. He hoped
the program could be resurrected indefinitely and that it
would become a regular feature of keeping the fastest
growing segment of the population in Alaska.
2:26:30 PM
Representative Stapp asked if trust and investment income
was applicable to the poverty line testing.
Ms. Ethridge replied that she would follow up on the
question.
Representative Stapp stated that the co-chair's reference
to broad-base category eligibility prompted his question.
He noted that those items [trust and investment income]
were not included in the definition. He asked how money was
loaded on the EBT card. He asked if it was a payment in
lieu of benefit. He thought there was a big difference in
being able to provide the payment on a card versus cutting
a check for recipients.
Ms. Ethridge responded that the agency FIS managed the
department's electronic benefit transactions. The
department authorized the transaction and FIS issued the
benefit based on the department's authorization.
Representative Stapp referenced testimony from Marge
Stoneking with AARP about housing, food, heat, and medical
care. He noted that all of those things were separate
federal programs including Medicaid and Medicare, which the
recipients would qualify for based on their income level.
He stated that the EBT card was for SNAP benefits. He asked
how the department would load payments that seniors could
in theory spend on other things onto a card intended for
SNAP.
Ms. Ethridge replied that the transaction type could be
identified when using the card.
2:29:02 PM
Representative Josephson stated his understanding that the
bill would repeal the 60-day rule and the longevity bonus
part of the law and retain AS 47.45.304, which seemed to
restrict absences to medical treatment, the accompanying of
a family member to medical treatment, and for a vacation,
business trip, or other absence of less than 30 consecutive
days unless the individual applied for and received a time
extension. He thought it seemed to deal with the snowbird
issue as well. He asked Mr. Hayes if that sounded
plausible.
Mr. Hayes replied, "I do believe so, yes."
SB 170 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee would focus on
energy bills the following week.
ADJOURNMENT
2:31:03 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:31 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB170 Sectional Analysis 3.11.24.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 170 |
| SB170 AARP Letter of Support rec'd 01.03.24 3.11.24.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 170 |
| SB170 Additional Documents-January 2024 Senior Benefit Fact Sheet 3.11.24.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 170 |
| SB170 Sponsor Statement 3.11.24.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 170 |
| SB170 Summary of Changes from Original Version B to S 3.11.24.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 170 |
| HB 219 Public Testimony Rec'd by 040424.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2024 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/1/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 219 |
| SB 170 DOH HFIN 4.12.24 SB170 Response 041924.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 170 |