Legislature(2021 - 2022)
04/29/2021 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB163 | |
| HB142 | |
| HB66 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 142-PFD ELIGIBILITY
4:07:13 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 142, "An Act relating to eligibility for
the permanent fund dividend." [Before the committee was CSHB
142(JUD).]
4:07:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HB 142, as the prime sponsor. He explained that the proposed
legislation would limit the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD)
eligibility of active-duty military members to those who were
physically stationed in Alaska.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from the committee.
4:08:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the bill would impact the
eligibility of congressional staff who had left the state and
were living and working in Washington D.C.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY indicated that congressional members,
members of the Peace Corps, and full-time students who were
still Alaska residents would still be eligible to receive the
PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the proposed legislation
would impact an Alaska resident who was stationed abroad for
some period of time and had family residing in state.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY relayed that a military member who was
deployed would not lose PFD eligibility if his/her base remained
in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether someone who was deployed
overseas would lose eligibility.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY was unsure of the answer.
4:12:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN questioned why the bill was focused
solely on the military, as opposed to having a broader scope.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY reported that last year, $16 million was
distributed to individuals who no longer lived in state. He
indicated that the intent was to reduce the amount of PFD
dollars sent to people who no longer resided in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN cited the sponsor statement, which
specified that in 2018, $4,900,000 had been distributed to
service members who spent more than 180 days out of state. He
inquired about the discrepancy between $16 million and
$4,900,000.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that the $4.9 million applied to
active-duty military members only, whereas the $16 million was
distributed to military members, as well as their significant
others and dependents.
4:14:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought to clarify when a service member
would become ineligible under the proposed legislation. She
pointed out that some military members were serving out of state
with the intent of returning to Alaska. She asked whether those
people would lose their eligibility.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY indicated that those individuals would
lose eligibility. He explained that many people who intended to
return to Alaska never did. He said if and when those military
members return to Alaska, they could regain their PFD
eligibility.
4:16:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, referencing a letter from the Department
of Revenue (DOR) [hard copy included in the committee packet],
asked Representative McCarty to quantify the forecasted increase
in eligibility for individuals not serving in the military.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY offered to follow up with the requested
information.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that the document from DOR
suggested that paid dividends would be reduced by approximately
$8.5 million if the bill were to pass. He contended that less
money wouldn't be disbursed, it would just be distributed to
different people. He asked if that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY shared his understanding that the
existing money would be divided accordingly to "the number
allocated out for the state in that year."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that if there was a finite amount
of money going towards dividends and the denominator of eligible
Alaskans grew smaller, then each remaining Alaskan would receive
an incrementally larger dividend.
4:18:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR sought to clarify the concept of
reestablishing residency for a service member who had left
Alaska and subsequently returned. She asked whether someone who
had previously established residency in Alaska would be
"situated differently" than someone who was new to Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said anyone who returned to the state or
moved to the state would be considered in an equitable manner.
He indicated that it would create too much of a? "quagmire" to
differentiate between the two.
4:21:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how many appeals had been submitted
against the denial of an individual's PFD eligibility, as well
as why certain appeals were awarded. She expressed concern
about taking away PFD eligibility from military members.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY recalled his conversation with two
generals who indicated that there was a lot of incentive to move
to Alaska for service members; further, that the proposed
legislation shouldn't deter that. He expressed concern about
the significant resources that were invested in the
investigations into applicants' intention of returning to the
state after a permanent change of station (PCS).
4:24:08 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many PCNs were in the
investigation section in the Permanent Fund Dividend Division.
4:24:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it would be beneficial to
discourage snowbirds from renting out their in-state residences,
as it could be perceived as a business.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that snowbirds were required to
return to the state within 180 days or else they lose their PFD
eligibility. Alternatively, military members could be deployed
over 180 days for purposes of deployment and still be considered
residents.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked DOR how much time would be spent
verifying people's intent to return to Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS agreed. He noted that these
questions would be addressed in the next bill hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned whether the repeal of the
allowable absence eligibility criteria, which required DOR to
consider relevant factors of intent, would impact individuals
outside of the military.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY deferred the question to the Permanent
Fund Dividend Division.
4:27:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled previous legislation that had
proposed placing dividends in an account for [service members]
who left the state with the intent to return in the future. She
explained that if those individuals returned to Alaska, they
would then be eligible to collect those PFDs. She asked whether
that concept had been considered by the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY replied that it had been considered.
4:29:00 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the bill sponsor had
considered amending any of the allowable absences in the
drafting of the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said he had considered making an
allowance for the commercial aviation industry but ultimately
decided against it, as other industries would have requested
equitable treatment.
4:30:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the language "is absent" on
page 2, line 1, of CSHB 142(JUD), which was changed from "was
absent". She asked whether the change of tense was made by the
bill sponsor or Legislative Legal Services.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY deferred the question to Legislative
Legal Services.
4:32:04 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 142 was held over.