HOUSE BILL NO. 219 "An Act repealing the assistive technology loan guarantee and interest subsidy program; and providing for an effective date." 1:38:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER, SPONSOR, introduced the bill. He stated that one of the best things about living in Alaska were the great people who had big hearts and a willingness to help every Alaskan enjoy life in the state to the maximum, including individuals experiencing physical or mental disabilities. For example, in 1995 the state sought and received a $500,000 grant aimed at backing loans for individuals with disabilities. He detailed that the loans helped people buy assistive technology (AT) to help them get or keep a job, attend school, or live more independently. He provided examples of AT including wheelchairs, computers, sleep synthesizers, prosthetics, hearing aids, and other communication devices. The legislature had established the Assistive Technology Loan Guarantee Fund intended to guarantee the principal amount of the loans to Alaskans in order to purchase AT. He noted the funds could also be used to subsidize interest rates. He relayed that despite the legislature's good intentions, few people had taken advantage of the program. The intent of HB 219 was to repeal the grant fund and direct the fund balance of approximately $460,000 to the Assistive Technology of Alaska (ATLA), a nonprofit empowered to administer the grants. He explained that the repeal of the underlying statute would only happen if the legislature reappropriated the funds through separate legislation. He believed members' bill packets included the draft language. He elaborated that passing HB 219 to repeal AS 23.15.125 would remove outdated statutory barriers that were keeping Alaskans with disabilities from taking advantage of the funds. He noted his staff was available to review the sectional analysis. Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from Representative Saddler's staff. 1:40:22 PM MELODIE WILTERDINK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), offered the sectional analysis of the bill (copy on file): Section 1 Page 1, Line 4 Section 1 repeals AS 23.15.125 the assistive technology loan guarantee and interest subsidy program which established the "assistive technology loan guarantee fund." The fund can be used to guarantee the principal amount or subsidize the interest rate of a loan for purchasing assistive technology that enables an individual to obtain or maintain employment or live more independently. Section 2 Page 1, Lines 5-9 Section 2 adds conditional language to Alaska's uncodified law stipulating that this act only takes effect if the Legislature reappropriates the balance of the assistive technology loan fund for the purpose of improving access to assistive technology. Section 3 Page 1, Line 10 Section 3 provides for an immediate effective date. Co-Chair Foster observed that the law would only take effect if the legislature reappropriated the balance of the AT fund. He asked if the adjustment was something that would happen at the very end of session when bills were rolled into the conference committee. Alternatively, he wondered if the operating budget co-chair needed to do something in the meantime. Ms. Wilterdink responded that there was drafted language and the amendment to the operating budget could happen in the House Finance Committee during the budget amendment process, on the House floor, or at a later time during conference committee. She noted that ideally the change would take place prior to conference committee. 1:43:16 PM Representative Josephson asked how the fund avoided being swept over the past several years. Representative Saddler deferred the question to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD). DUANE MAYES, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), replied that he did not have the details to answer the question. He relayed that the funding had been a one-time allocation to the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) in 1995. He offered to follow up with the information. Representative Saddler speculated that the fact that the funding was still available 30 years after the establishment of the fund was some indication it had found a niche to be safe from the sweep. Co-Chair Foster suggested a follow-up on the question with the information to be provided at the next hearing on the bill. Representative Hannan asked how much money was available in the fund. She understood the fund had initially been capitalized with federal money and $100,000 had been put in a couple of years later. She remarked that the fiscal note did not address how much money would be reappropriated. She asked if none of the money had ever been spent and if it earned interest in the fund. Representative Saddler deferred to Mr. Mayes. Mr. Mayes responded that the current balance of the fund was $447,000. He estimated that over the 30-year life of the fund, around 10 loans had been provided. He relayed that there had been no loans in the past six years. Representative Saddler added that there had been a period of very low interest rates and because part of the aim of the federal grant money was to subside loans it was rather difficult to find a way in which a subsidy was much of a benefit. He stated it was one of the reasons the loan program had been moribund. Representative Hannan asked if there were any restrictions on reappropriation tied to the initial $291,000 in federal funds. Representative Saddler deferred the question to Mr. Mayes. He believed there were some restrictions. Mr. Mayes answered that ATLA was the implementing agency and store front in terms of technology. There were no restrictions on the funds. The change in statute would enable the state to allocate the funding to ATLA, which was better positioned to promote the program and the funds. The department had been talking with its federal funding partner and there were many other states that had done the same thing because they were experiencing the same thing as Alaska. 1:49:09 PM Representative Hannan provided a hypothetical scenario where the legislature wanted to move the initial amount that was capitalized and to reappropriate $100,000 to senior and disability services technology. She asked if the scenario would be allowed. She noted the reappropriation in the scenario would be a different action from the bill. She wondered whether the legislature could only reappropriate the funds to one thing or if it had carte blanche through its appropriation power to put the funds towards any disability services. Mr. Mayes responded that ATLA was the implementing agency that DLWD worked with. The department's Division of Vocational Rehabilitation had a set of rehabilitation counselors who may use ATLA to assess technology needs. There was no other entity in the state that he was aware of. He explained that ATLA was federally recognized under the 21st Century Assistive Technology Act. Representative Saddler added that it was his understanding that with funds established through law, often the lender specified the fund balance included original appropriation plus earnings. He would look into HB 65, the 1995 vehicle that established the fund. Co-Chair Foster thought it was a good question asked by Representative Hannan about whether $100,000 could be reappropriated to another program. He would be happy with a simple yes or no answer. Representative Galvin thanked Representative Saddler for finding money that was not being spent and was meant to be spent on behalf of individuals who need the funds. She referenced support letters included in members' packets (copy on file). She looked at language specifying that ATLA remained one of the only nonprofits to provide services to all Alaskans regardless of age, location, income, or diagnosis. She stated that the language "one of the only" made her wonder if there were others. She asked if there had been a process in which the department had chosen to focus on ATLA. Representative Saddler asked which letter and location she was referencing. Representative Galvin referred to paragraph three of a letter from the Association of Assistive Technology Act (copy on file). She noted that the sentence was in a couple of the letters. She referenced a letter from Articulate Speech and Language Therapy (copy on file) as another example. Representative Saddler responded that ATLA and DVR had made him aware of the issue and had suggested the bill. He believed ATLA was one of a few nonprofits providing the services, but ATLA was the primary entity with the most experience and efficacy. He thought ATLA was the only agency that had every facilitated the grants. He concluded that ATLA was in the best position and best nonprofit available to deliver the money to people who need it. He deferred to the executive director of ATLA to answer if there were other agencies that may qualify. 1:54:42 PM MYSTIE RAIL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), answered that ATLA was the only agency in the state dealing with assistive technology and it was the implementing agency of the federal AT Act. Representative Galvin stated that all of her questions were answered if the grant was single sourced toward only one purpose. Co-Chair Foster noted that Mr. Mayes was listed as invited testimony. He asked if Mr. Mayes had additional comments. Mr. Mayes shared that he had worked in the state system for 35 years. He started out in 1989 as the rehabilitation counselor for the deaf and hard of hearing and had worked in the position for nine years. He relayed that ATLA was with him at the time, and he often used the agency to identify technology needs for deaf, blind, or hard of hearing. He relayed that with the exception of senior and disability services and the Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education, ATLA was the sole agency the rehabilitation counselors worked for. He relayed that the skill set counselors needed to have was complicated and it was rare to find someone with that level of skill. He stated that ATLA had been around for a long time and was the lifeline for DVR. 1:57:17 PM Representative Hannan remarked that DVR had previously had an assistive program to help deaf individuals, but it no longer existed. She wondered if some of the funding could be used to reinstate such a program. Alternatively, she wondered if the funding was constrained and could not be used for that purpose. Mr. Mayes deferred the question to Ms. Rail. Ms. Rail responded that she was not aware of the specific program that had previously existed under DVR. She relayed that ATLA was a community rehabilitation provider for the division. She explained that the division counselors referred individuals to ATLA for a full assessment and to provide recommendations on the right assistive technology. Representative Hannan shared that she had some active deaf constituents who had repeatedly told her they used to have supports at DVR, but the programs had been cut. She elaborated that they found it very hard to find access to services and supports within state agencies to interact with state agencies. She explained that the individuals continually asked when the positions could be reinstated. She was trying to determine whether the funding could only be directed to individuals or if it could be used to provide a deaf assistance person at the division that deaf Alaskans could contact for a variety of supports. Co-Chair Foster thought it sounded like some research and follow up was needed. Representative Saddler stated that he had some difficulty understanding Ms. Rail possibly due to speakerphone. He believed Ms. Rail had said that if someone was referred to ATLA, the agency would conduct an assessment of the person's disabilities and would be able to help provide assistive technology if a person was deaf or hard of hearing. 2:01:07 PM Ms. Rail agreed. She detailed that ATLA provided AT and the associated services. The agency had additional programs it was able to administer to provide specific types of devices for deaf or hard of hearing individuals and individuals experiencing speech impairment. She speculated that the constituents that Representative Hannan was speaking of were likely looking for services beyond assistive technology and the services provided by ATLA. She explained that ATLA was very focused on providing AT and the surrounding services. Co-Chair Foster asked Ms. Rail to provide any comments as an invited testifier. Ms. Rail shared that ATLA had become a 501(c)(3) in 1994 and the implementing agency of the federal Assistive Technology Act under the direction of DVR. She noted that the federal funds went directly to DVR and were passed on to ATLA. The agency's mission was to enhance the quality of life for Alaskans through assistive technology. She relayed that ATLA was the state's only comprehensive assistive technology resource center that provided services statewide to Alaskans at any age with any disability, injury, or illness. She noted that most other nonprofits were specific to certain ages, disabilities, or areas within the state. She explained that ATLA partnered with all of those agencies. Ms. Rail supported the activities outline in the Assistive Technology Act. She detailed that assistive technology was defined as any item, piece of equipment, software program, or product system used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of people with disabilities. She explained that AT could be as simple and low tech as putting rubberized grips on a pen for a person experiencing arthritis or as high tech as a device called Eyegaze that enabled a person to control a computer or iPad using only their eyes. She elaborated that AT could range from solutions made ourselves to specialized equipment from AT manufacturers to everyday off-the-shelf devices like an iPad or Amazon's Alexa. She stressed that AT was not a one size fits all solution. She relayed that devices and services were unique to each person ATLA worked with. She provided examples of individuals receiving assistance through ATLA. She highlighted an elder in rural Alaska who was losing his vision and was now able to read his own mail with the assistance of a digital magnifier. Another example was a non-verbal six-year-old with autism in Ketchikan who had recently told her mom "thank you" for the first time using a symbol-based communication device. Ms. Rail stated that AT devices and services were critical to ensure Alaskans with disabilities were able to live, work, and participate in their communities independently. 2:06:27 PM Ms. Rail continued to provide details about ATLA. She relayed that as the implementing agency of the Assistive Technology Act, ATLA provided demonstrations of the devices to offer opportunities for Alaskans to become familiar with the different types of technology that could help them. She explained that it offered Alaskans a chance to compare and contrast the functions and features of each device through hands-on exploration by an AT professional. The agency also allowed individuals to borrow equipment for two to four weeks to determine whether the item would meet their needs prior to purchase. The agency also supported the reuse of AT in order for multiple people to benefit from a device. The AT Act did not allow ATLA to purchase technology directly for a person, but it allowed ATLA to do state financing activities to administer other initiatives for funding resources that did support the acquisition of the AT for consumers at no cost using dollars from non-AT Act sources. The agency also used AT Act dollars to provide outreach and awareness and to collaborate with partner agencies across the state. The intent of HB 219 would be to support the activities already provided by ATLA through the AT Act. Ms. Rail stressed that technology was rapidly changing as were the needs of Alaskans served by the agency. She stated that the funds received by the agency through the AT Act did not begin to cover the need to purchase more AT for demonstration centers or to be able to provide short-term loans. She stated that the funds [that would result from HB 219] would ensure ATLA could meet the increased urgency for AT and to help improve and continue to improve the quality of life for Alaskans with disabilities. The additional funds would also strengthen and sustain the gaps in services or in devices that were needed to support Alaskans. She thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak. Co-Chair Foster thanked Ms. Rail for her testimony. He asked Representative Saddler for any closing comments. 2:09:30 PM Representative Saddler thanked the committee and was available for questions. Representative Tomaszewski asked if the fund had collected any interest over its 30-year lifespan. Representative Saddler deferred the question to Mr. Mayes. Mr. Mayes confirmed that there was some interest made on the funding, but he did not have the specific numbers on hand. He would follow up with the information. Co-Chair Foster set the amendment deadline for Friday, March 29 at 5:00 p.m. HB 219 was HEARD and HELD for further consideration.