Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
02/04/2016 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
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.
Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 226-EXTEND ALASKA COMMISSION ON AGING 3:19:49 PM CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 226, "An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska Commission on Aging; and providing for an effective date." 3:20:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, clarified that there were now three new fiscal notes. He explained that, as the Alaska Commission on Aging (ACOA) existed in the State of Alaska, the qualifications of certain federal statutes for funding had been met. He reported that ACOA also fulfilled an obligation and requirement for the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA). He directed attention to the fiscal note, OMB Component Number 2674, which listed $119,100 under the Fund Source from MHTAAR (Mental Health Trust Authority Agency Receipts) as the money contributed by AMHTA to fulfill its obligations. He shared that the General Fund and I/A Receipts also listed under the Fund Source were from Department of Health and Social Services, which had designated ACOA as the agency to fulfill the federal requirements. He pointed out that there were now fiscal notes from the Senior and Disabilities Services Administration, OMB Component Number 2663, showing a receipt of $603,200 in federal receipts [listed under Fund Source], and from the Senior Community Based Grants, OMB Component Number 2787, which reflected a federal receipt of $5,771,300 [listed under Fund Source]. He stated the key point was that "ACOA serves a real purpose here. By having it, we are able to avail ourselves of the federal money that's available for the state for these particular programs." He pointed out that, should ACOA not be re-authorized, the state would either have to cease participation in these programs, or designate another state agency to take its place. He stated that this clarified the need for three fiscal notes, the exact role of ACOA, and that it satisfied requirements from the federal government for Alaska to receive money for senior benefits and requirements from AMHTA to satisfy its obligations. He declared that ACOA served a good purpose, and there was great leverage from the general funds invested in these services. 3:25:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked about the interplay between the three fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER reiterated that all three fiscal notes defined allocations in the various budgets which appropriated money and provided a fund source for this money. He directed attention to the Allocation on each fiscal note, which was "the most granular level within the budget where this money is appropriated as both an expenditure and we provide a fund source for it." He pointed to the Appropriation, which he explained was the next tier of the budget, and was within the Department, listed just above it. He shared that, although all three fiscal notes were appropriated into the Senior and Disabilities Services, the allocations were to different areas, hence the need for three separate fiscal notes. He explained that, with the passage of any bill with an attached fiscal note, this fiscal note was added to the budget through an appropriation that identified the specific fiscal note. He pointed out that, as this was a reauthorization bill, the money was already in the current budget, but would disappear without reauthorization of the agency, a consequence should proposed HB 226 not be passed. He clarified that should that happen, the money would not be spent or received, which was reflected in the fiscal notes. He stated that the policy call was for whether there was sufficient value and merit from this agency and its activities. REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ directed attention to the fiscal note labeled OMB Component Number 2663, and asked about the nature of the services for $520,300 listed under Operating Expenditures. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER referenced the back page of the fiscal note, noting that it explained the services in general, although a very specific explanation would come from the agency. CHAIR SEATON clarified that the fiscal note OMB Component Number 2674 had been updated on 02/04/16. 3:32:06 PM DUANE MAYES, Director, Central Office, Division of Senior and Disabilities Services, Department of Health and Social Services, in response to Representative Vazquez, said that this money was for two reimbursable services agreements (RSAs), one to the Long Term Care Ombudsman in the Department of Revenue and the other to the Alaska Commission on Aging. REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ offered her belief that funds to the Alaska Commission on Aging would be through Personal Services, under Operating Expenditures in the aforementioned fiscal note. MR. MAYES relayed that he was unsure why these Services had not been included under Personal Services on the fiscal note. 3:34:26 PM JACQUELLI ZIEGENFUSS, Administration Operations Manager, Central Office, Division of Senior and Disabilities Services, Department of Health and Social Services, explained that RSAs were paid from the Services line, which included any passage of funds onto another state agency. REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked why the funding to the Alaska Commission on Aging was not on the Personal Services line, instead of the Services line. MS. ZIEGENFUSS directed attention to the fiscal note OMB Component Number 2663 and explained that those funds go out through the Services line and then, on fiscal note OMB Component Number 2674, move into the Personal Services line for the Alaska Commission on Aging. She directed attention to page 2, final paragraph, of the aforementioned fiscal note, which stated that the commission was funded in part by an RSA from the Senior and Disabilities Services Administration component, while a small portion of this was federal funding. REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether the Alaska Commission on Aging was funded through the Personal Services on fiscal note OMB Component Number 2663 and then additionally through an RSA from the Senior and Disabilities Services Administration. MS. ZIEGENFUSS directed attention to Fund Source, I/A Receipts (interagency receipts) on the fiscal note OMB Component Number 2674, which helped fund the Personal Services under Operating Expenditures. She stated that these funds, $348,100, were used for the expenditure of personal services. REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if this money was received from the Senior and Disabilities Services Administration. MS. ZIEGENFUSS stated her agreement. REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if the other dollars not reflected in the fiscal notes were awarded through a competitive grant process, and what evaluation process was used to ensure that the money was distributed "to the best places." 3:38:38 PM LISA MORLEY, DSDS Grants, Central Office, Division of Senior and Disabilities Services, Department of Health and Social Services, explained that the other funds not accounted for in the fiscal note were distributed directly from the Administration on Community Living, part of the Older Americans Act. The funds identified in this fiscal note were from Title III, and were a combination of funds for grants and services directly to seniors, the Long Term Care Ombudsman, the Alaska Commission on Aging, and administration. She stated that Title IV funds were discretionary and competitive, and that the State of Alaska was not currently receiving any of these funds. She explained that Title V funds were for workforce for seniors, and were distributed to the Department of Labor & Workforce Development. She relayed that Title VI funds were awarded directly to the tribal governments, about $4 million during the past year. She concluded with the Title VII funds which were awarded to the Long Term Care Ombudsman in the Department of Revenue. REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked where the public could look at the list of grantees. MS. MORLEY asked if the reference was for grantees receiving funds to provide direct services in Alaska or those who receive Title III funds. REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked about any grantees receiving grants from the Division of Senior and Disabilities Services. MS. MORLEY replied that these were online in an operating grants book, which listed every grant funded program by region and by grantee, and included the dollar amounts. She offered her belief that this was listed under the Department of Health and Social Services, Finance and Management Services. She offered to provide the link. REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked for how long the Older Americans Act was reauthorized relative to the longevity of the funds. MS. MORLEY replied that she did not recall. MR. MAYES said that he would supply the information. There being no further objection, the amended fiscal notes were adopted. 3:42:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report HB 226, Version 29- LS1089\A, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying amended fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 226 was moved from the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee.