Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/02/2021 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' 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 | |
| HB34 | |
| HB97 | |
| HB34 | |
| HB97 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 97-LAND VOUCHERS; PFDS
1:23:23 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 97, "An Act relating to the veterans' land
purchase discount; establishing state land vouchers; relating to
the permanent fund dividend; relating to the duties of the
Department of Revenue; authorizing the Department of Natural
Resources to accept state land vouchers; relating to eligibility
for public assistance; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR TUCK announced that HB 97 would be set aside for later in
the meeting.
1:27:43 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that the final order of business would be a
return to HOUSE BILL NO. 97, "An Act relating to the veterans'
land purchase discount; establishing state land vouchers;
relating to the permanent fund dividend; relating to the duties
of the Department of Revenue; authorizing the Department of
Natural Resources to accept state land vouchers; relating to
eligibility for public assistance; and providing for an
effective date."
1:29:33 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 1:29 to address a
technical issue.
1:29:51 PM
MIKE BARNHILL, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Revenue, presented a PowerPoint on HB 97 [hard
copy included in the committee packet] He stated that this
proposed legislation would provide an option for permanent fund
dividend (PFD) recipients to forgo a cash PFD in exchange for a
land voucher with a face value two times the value of the
statutory formula of the PFD, regardless of what the legislature
appropriates as the cash value. He described the historic
precedent for using land vouchers beginning with compensation
for Revolutionary War veterans, and referenced a book by David
McCullough called "The Pioneers" for more historical context.
He said the overall goal of the bill is to get more state land
into the hands of Alaskans.
1:33:06 PM
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL specified that these vouchers can't
be used to buy Mental Health Trust land, and children will be
prohibited from participating. Vouchers can't be used for rent
or fees, only purchase, and the electronic PFD application must
be used to opt for land vouchers. Eligibility must be
determined prior to the issuance of the PFD for logistics
reasons. Vouchers are transferable and don't expire; the DOR
will track any transfers. Garnishment such as for child support
will be handled the same way as cash PFDs.
1:36:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that there were three zero fiscal
notes and asked how the program would operate without any cost
added to the state.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL replied that the Department of
Revenue (DOR) does have a relatively small positive fiscal note
that covers the programming costs incurred to modify the PFD
system to accommodate the voucher program. On a go-forward
basis the cost of issuing the vouchers is relatively de minimis.
If this program becomes popular it may cost more, but at the
outset the program isn't expected to be expensive to administer.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for confirmation that, in this
initial year, the cost would be just for the software to
initiate the program and there would be no cost to the state
after the first year.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL answered, "No sir, not at the scale
that we anticipate."
1:38:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, regarding the garnishment process,
referred to a formula of a $2300 dividend that would yield a
land voucher for $4,600. He then asked - if the dividend in
cash is only $1,000 and the $1,000 is garnished - whether the
land voucher would still have a value of $3,600.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL replied, "That's exactly correct."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether this would create an
incentive for people - who know they're going to have their
dividends garnished - to apply for land vouchers, knowing that
they're behind on whatever is causing their dividend to be
garnished, and they get this $3,600 value windfall instead of
losing the $1,000.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL replied that he can't speak to the
incentives or motivation for taking advantage of a program, but
the result that Representative Claman described is accurate. He
added that the department believes that the paper [land] voucher
is still subject to garnishment or attachment. He stated, "The
difficulty in having [the] Child Support Division do that
attachment is: all you're then doing is giving someone a piece
of paper instead of cash."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, using the $4,600 example, asked how much
land a husband and wife, using both of their vouchers totaling
$9,200, could acquire.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL deferred to Mr. Parsons for that
question.
1:41:10 PM
MARTY PARSONS, Director, Division of Mining Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) averages about $3,000 per
acre on land sales statewide and normally offers five-acre
parcels. Using two PFD land vouchers, a couple would get about
two-thirds of a five-acre parcel of land paid for by the
voucher.
1:41:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked for confirmation that residents must
apply electronically.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL confirmed that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked, considering there's a substantial
number of residents who fill out their PFD application on paper,
whether there is a reason for the requirement to file online.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL replied that the department has
made an ongoing effort to channel as many Alaskans as possible
into the electronic application process; the electronic
restriction is also true for the Pick-Click-Give program. Every
year the number of paper applications declines substantially,
and he believes the department is now at a historic low in terms
of the number of paper applications it receives. He then
referred to Anna MacKinnon for expansion on this.
1:43:26 PM
ANNA MACKINNON, Acting Director, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, Department of Revenue, confirmed Deputy Commissioner
Barnhill's assessment of the number of paper applications and
noted that 90 percent of Alaskans filed their PFD applications
online last season. She offered to provide specifics if
necessary.
1:44:02 PM
CHAIR TUCK asked what the main reasons are for people not filing
electronically.
MS. MACKINNON answered that they are doing outreach and survey
on that question but that she has been told by the leadership
team at the Permanent Fund Dividend Division that the group is
heavily influenced by age, and by rural areas having latency
issues with being able to access the Internet. Most paper
applications are from the senior population.
1:45:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for a sense of the location of the
land available for purchase through the program, and what
services are provided with the land.
MR. PARSONS replied that the state runs several different land
disposal programs; subdivision programs from Southeast to
Western to Central Alaska, with land sales all over the state.
Those lands that do not sell as part of the land sale program go
into an "over-the-counter" sale, where anyone can buy them
directly online. They also have a remote cabin staking program,
wherein a person can lease a parcel of up to 20 acres in a
remote area with the first three years' getting appraisals and
surveys done and then convert it to a land sale contract. The
land disposals are statewide, and amenities and infrastructure
in place depend on the borough.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY followed up asking for a sense of where in
the Juneau area the lands are available.
MR. PARSONS answered that the department has not had many land
sales in the Southeast area due to its entitlement as the
Tongass National Forest. There have been sales of land in
Tenakee Springs, Pelican, Prince of Wales Island, and some of
the older subdivisions near Mendenhall Glacier which were
originally state land sale programs.
1:48:32 PM
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL said that under HB 97, when someone
opts for a land voucher on their PFD application the cash from
PFDs not paid will lapse to the general fund. The final point
is that this bill would require the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) administrator to consider the voucher as
income or resources in determining eligibility for benefits
programs. He noted that there is a DHSS representative
available for questions on this point.
1:49:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how it is possible to have no
[positive] fiscal note if cash were to be transferred from the
Permanent Fund Dividend.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL responded that Representative Story
has a good point, and the department may be amending the fiscal
note; however, it would be indeterminate since the department
does not know how many people would be electing the land voucher
in lieu of the cash dividend.
1:51:21 PM
MR. PARSONS noted that Alaska has the only constitution in the
country that has a specific section for natural resources for
the purpose of developing and settling the land to the maximum
use consent with the public interest; the proposed bill is one
of the ways to fulfill that constitutional obligation. There is
no other state that has less land in private, individual hands
than Alaska, with Alaskan residents holding about .5 percent of
Alaskan land, whereas the federal government will retain about
60 percent of the land mass in Alaska "once our entitlement has
been completed" [under the 1959 Alaska Statehood Act]. HB 97
would provide an asset of which Alaska has a large inventory,
and reduces the strain on the state treasury by using land as a
form of currency. Survey respondents indicated that cash/cost
was a significant reason for not already participating in the
land sale program, so this voucher program provides residents
with the opportunity to participate. Private ownership of the
land helps not only settle the land, but also to increase the
tax base.
1:53:54 PM
CHAIR TUCK asked if a group of people (excluding children) could
pool vouchers.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL responded that anyone could pool or
sell their vouchers.
1:54:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that under the current proposal the
cash dividend would lapse into the General fund to be
appropriated as the legislature sees fit; he then asked whether
the department has a perspective on amending the proposal so
that the cash would divert to the Permanent Fund principal
instead.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL answered that the logic in having
it lapse to the General fund is that the state is providing some
additional value through the land voucher program, and the
General fund should be compensated for that. The lapse is
functionally that compensation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned whether - if part of the goal
is to grow the size of the Permanent Fund principal - it would
be an incentive for those who wanted to help grow the principal,
since they could get a land voucher and also divert the cash
value back to the principal.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL noted that Representative Claman
has made a fair point and to the extent that people want to
participate in essentially turning dollars back to the permanent
fund to grow the principal, it's ultimately a policy call where
best to place those lapsing dollars. The intention here is
simply to compensate the General fund for the subsidy that's
built into the sale of land, but it would be possible to put the
money into the permanent fund.
1:57:09 PM
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL referred to page four of the hard
copy of the presentation, a cash flow based on a hypothetical
participation level of 40,000 applicants opting for the land
voucher approach, out of 640,000 PFD applicants. The PFD would
be $600 million cash disbursements, $40 million would lapse to
the general fund, and the face value of the land vouchers would
be 40,000 applicants times $4,600 totaling $184 million.
Assuming $300 million in land was sold, with $184 million in
vouchers and $116 million in cash, when adding the $40 million
in lapsing cash plus the $116 million in cash sales, it's a
total of $156 million to the general fund. He stressed
throughout that this is purely a hypothetical scenario.
1:59:22 PM
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER concluded with a mockup of what the actual
voucher would look like, with a unique serial number and
transfer information.
1:59:51 PM
CHAIR TUCK asked if whether, under the proposed legislation, it
would be possible for someone to receive a land voucher prorated
for half of the PFD.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL answered that HB 97 would not
provide for the ability to split a PFD between land voucher and
cash for situations in which the applicant is not under
garnishment.
CHAIR TUCK asserted, "All-or-nothing unless you're being
garnished."
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL confirmed that is correct.
2:00:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, seeking clarification on the garnishment
process, offered a hypothetical scenario in which he owes $5,000
to different creditors and his PFD is garnished every year. He
asked, if he applied for his PFD and chose to convert it to the
land voucher, whether he would get the $4,600 land voucher and
the creditors could garnish the dividend based on the $1,000
cash value and get the full amount.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL restated the hypothetical and
explained that the $1,000 cash value would go toward the
garnishments, and the person would have a land voucher
certificate that would be reduced by $1,000 in value. The
creditors owed the remaining $4,000 would have the usual legal
tools to pursue the resident for the remaining $4,000. He
stressed that the DOR is not managing or administering the
latter piece.
2:02:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, following up with the same hypothetical,
proffered that the original $5,000 garnishment is now down to
$4,000 and, assuming the debt still exists, next year the same
amount of $1,000 could be garnished and he could still receive
the land voucher value of $3,600.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL replied that is correct, and he
pointed out that the creditor has a net result of $1,000 whether
or not the resident elected for the land voucher or the cash
PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN remarked that this could be way to game
the system by accumulating land vouchers or reselling a land
voucher on a secondary market.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL noted that it is an interesting
question but remarked that it's not yet known if a secondary
market will emerge. He noted that a land voucher program would
provide security for people who are being garnished, in that
there's additional value. He said that the DOR isn't
administering that portion, but there are still legal tools and
rights for cash and real assets. He used the example of a
noncustodial parent who is accumulating land vouchers, freeing
up hypothetical cash for garnishment.
2:06:47 PM
CHAIR TUCK noted for the record that Representative Tarr had
joined the meeting five minutes prior.
2:06:53 PM
CHAIR TUCK noted that many people would like to buy land but
don't have the financial means; he hypothesized that if he were
delinquent in his bills, he would have a better chance of
getting land if he took the land voucher along with the
garnishment process instead of taking a cash PFD and using it to
pay debts. This could incentivize people to not pay their bills
and still get land.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL clarified that what the Governor is
trying to do is get land into the hands of Alaskans who are
having difficulty achieving self-sufficiency. Access to land
and real property means being able to build a house or a
business; the state has a land bank and residents can put it to
productive use.
2:09:30 PM
CHAIR TUCK said that while he appreciates the intent of HB 97,
he questions how the administration came up with the idea of
"allowing people who have garnished PFDs to still get a land
voucher, but those who can only afford a portion of the PFD
cannot get a land voucher." In response to a request for
clarification, he asked Deputy Commissioner asked how the
administration came up with the idea of allowing people with
garnished PFDs to still get a land voucher. He asked Deputy
Commissioner Barnhill to confirm his understanding that under HB
97, someone whose PFD is garnished can still get a land voucher
and offset the garnishment of the cash value toward the full
value of the land voucher.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL confirmed that is correct.
CHAIR TUCK surmised that someone receiving a $1000 dividend but
wants to withhold $500 to get caught up on bills, would not be
allowed to purchase a land voucher with the remaining $500. He
questioned why the land voucher could be prorated for those who
are under garnishment but not for those who are not.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL indicated that the department would
take that under advisement and stressed that the issue is the
ease of administration.
CHAIR TUCK asked if it would be easier to specify that if anyone
isn't eligible to receive their full PFD for any reason, then
the individual wouldn't be eligible for a land voucher?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL replied that potentially that would
be easier, but questions whether it meets the policy objectives.
He said he is not sure that restricting the land voucher from
anyone who has their PFD garnished is the policy direction in
which the departments wants to go. However, he said Chair
Tuck's idea potentially expands the number of participants in
the program, so it's worth consideration.
2:12:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked what the benefit beyond the
constitutional objectives is. Presuming that this program
works, the result may be that many Alaskans have property that
is remote and not accessible by road, unlikely to be developed,
and would carry no state property tax, only local. She posited
that if the program is not well thought-out, then it could be
disruptive to future development plans that might make more
sense for the area. She said that this program doesn't seem to
have a purpose.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL explained that in history of land
voucher programs the [federal] government has never specified a
use for the property; individuals can decide for themselves how
best to use the property. The history of the country shows that
once people own land, they will put it to productive use.
2:15:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded:
So it's this administration's belief that there's a
large number of Alaskans out there that have a lot of
money and they're standing by ready to develop a
property in any number of ways if only they had $4,600
to get access to it? That seems laughable. Just for my
property it would be more than $4,600 to get just like
the smallest amount of supplies to the site for
building.
Representative Tarr added that in 2021, $4,600 doesn't go very
far.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL explained that earlier in the
hearing Mr. Parsons had discussed the average cost of a parcel
of land and is available for questions.
2:16:31 PM
MR. PARSONS noted land sales in accessible areas along the Glenn
Highway and the Tok area, as well as remote sites. The money in
this program would be to offset the cost of the parcel itself,
not necessarily transportation or needed development of the
parcel.
2:17:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said while there may not be a resolution to
the question, Mr. Parsons had made her point; if $4,600 is
what's holding someone back from land ownership, then there
won't be development potential. She noted that it's not fair to
give false expectations about the possibilities with this
legislation.
2:18:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked to return to the question of a
secondary market and mentioned Bitcoin as an example of a
security that doesn't have a certificate. Someone who has the
resources to buy vouchers on the secondary market at less than
face value could feasibly acquire land at a substantial
discount. He noted that there are many potential consequences
it doesn't seem the department has thought through; he asked for
an example of some of the potential consequences of a secondary
market for land vouchers that the department has analyzed.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARNHILL replied that it's impossible to
predict whether a secondary market will emerge and what could
happen in terms of fluctuating value; if one does emerge and
people were able to take advantage, it still means that people
have more money in their pocket to pay their obligations.
2:21:49 PM
VERDIE BOWEN, Director of Veterans Affairs, Office of Veterans
Affairs, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, noted that
he can see how this would benefit veterans in that they could
receive the land voucher and still be eligible for the [25]
percent discount available to veterans on the actual purchase.
The Native Veteran Land Allotment through the federal government
has lands located throughout the state with much more land
available than for over-the-counter sales.
2:22:58 PM
CHAIR TUCK asked about the "Native Veteran Land Allotment" and
whether the land vouchers provided under HB 97 would be
applicable to purchases of that specific land.
MR. BOWEN replied that the federal program is a different issue.
2:23:42 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that HB 97 would be held over.