Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/21/2021 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB39 | |
| HB142 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 142-PFD ELIGIBILITY
1:12:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 142, "An Act relating to eligibility for the
permanent fund dividend."
1:12:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that before the committee was a blank
committee substitute for HB 142.
1:13:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 142 as prime sponsor. He explained that the bill would
reform eligibility for the Alaska permanent fund dividend for
only active-duty military members stationed in Alaska. He
stated that the bill would eliminate the allowable absence in AS
42.23.008 (3) (a) for service members and their dependents
deployed outside of Alaska under a temporary deployment (TDY).
He explained that future intent to remain in Alaska is difficult
to determine.
1:16:23 PM
TIFFANY LUND, Staff, Representative Ken McCarty, Alaska State
Legislature, summarized the sectional analysis on HB 142. She
drew attention to section 2 and stated that it contained a
grammatical error and that language in eligibility criteria
would be amended and not added, as indicated in the sectional
analysis. She further explained that section 2 would amend
eligibility criteria to (3)(A) which specifies that the absence
is allowable only if the individual is deployed or on a
temporary duty assignment while serving on active duty and was
physically residing in the state under orders of the armed
forces immediately before the absence.
MS. Lund went on to explain the rest of the sectional analysis,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 3
This section repeals the following eligibility
requirements, criteria, or allowable absences.
AS 43.23.005 Eligibility
Repeals an individual's eligibility to receive a
dividend if the individual has been physically present
in the state for the at least 72 consecutive hours at
some time during the prior two years before the
current dividend year.
As 43.23.0050 Eligibility
Repeals the commissioner's ability to waive the 72
consecutive hour requirement, as that requirement is
also repealed.
AS 43.23.008(e) Allowable absence
Repeals the requirement of the department to consider
relevant factors to determine if an individual intends
to return and remain in the state indefinitely.
Section 4
Provides an effective date of January l, 2023.
MS. Lund clarified that the wording in the sectional analysis
may be confusing and that it would be clearer to state that
section 3 would repeal the eligibility requirement of physical
presence in Alaska for 72 consecutive hours in a two-year period
prior to the current dividend year to receive a dividend and
repeal AS 43.23.005 (f), the commissioner's ability to waive
that rule. She added that AS 43.23.008 (e) would also be
repealed and it is language that the requirement of the
department to consider relevant factors to determine if an
individual intends to return and remain in the state
indefinitely. She added that, finally, section 4 provides for
an effective date. She asked whether the committee substitute
had been adopted.
1:19:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that it was the intention of the committee
to adopt the committee substitute.
1:20:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to adopt the committee substitute
for HB 142 as a working document.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
1:20:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for the bill sponsor to speak about
the differences between the original bill and the proposed
committee substitute.
1:20:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY explained that the original draft of the
bill had included individuals in the aviation profession and the
language had been eliminated to prevent ambiguity.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY further added that the committee
substitute would clarify language defining military residing in
Alaska and deployment and TDY at the recommendation of the
Permanent Fud Dividend Division (PFDD) auditors.
1:21:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the committee substitute
under consideration would result in more or fewer restrictions
on eligibility.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY answered that there would not be more
restrictive eligibility requirements, and that individuals who
move out of Alaska would not be eligible to collect the dividend
after moving out of state.
1:22:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there would be a change to
the fiscal note, should the committee substitute be adopted.
MS. LUND answered that the fiscal note has not been changed but
there existed a potential that it would change as a result of
removing the aviation industry allowable absence provision. She
added that PFDD staff were available to answer questions.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked PFDD staff to answer whether there would
result a change in the fiscal note should the committee
substitute be adopted.
1:23:35 PM
BOBBI SCHERRER, Appeals Manager, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, answered that there would likely be a change to the
fiscal note to include revised data, should the committee
substitute be adopted.
1:23:57 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the committee could expect a revised
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN removed his objection.
1:24:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN ascertained no further objection to the adoption of
the committee substitute, and it was so adopted.
1:24:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated his dismay at the potential
of tens of millions of dollars leaving the sate due to
individuals maintaining eligibility for the dividend after
moving out of Alaska and with potentially no intent to return.
He lauded the bill's sponsor for bringing forward this
legislation. He stated his belief that the dividend should be
distributed to residents of Alaska, in Alaska.
1:25:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what effect the repeal of 43.23.005
(a) (4) would have on the requirement of 72 consecutive hours in
Alaska.
MS. SCHERRER asked whether Representative Vance was interested
to learn the number of applicants affected or the process of
determining eligibility.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that she was interested in learning
any potential unintended consequences that would result from the
repeal of the language.
MS. SCHERRER answered that the repeal of the 72-hour requirement
would influence the five-year rule, wherein individuals are
required to return to Alaska for a total of 30 cumulative days
to maintain eligibility for the dividend.
1:27:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether AS 43.23.008 (e) pertained to
the five-year rule, how it relates to an individual's intent to
remain in Alaska, and whether there may exist broader
implications [should HB 142 pass].
MS. SCHERRER answered that it would result in broader
implications due to individuals working through the five-year
eligibility requirements and their requirement to manage the 72
consecutive hours [of time within Alaska].
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY explained that that, under current
statute, an individual who is on a permanent change of station
out of state may claim his/her intent to return to the state and
may obtain a storage unit or mailing address and claim it as
evidence of having remained in state. The individual would be
required to [be physically present] in the state for 72 hours
each year over five years. He expressed his understanding that
the change would apply only to those stationed outside of Alaska
and would not apply to students attending college out of state.
1:30:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there exists a question on
the permanent fund dividend (PFD) application to indicate
whether the applicant is in state and intends to remain in
state.
MS. SCHERRER answered yes, and the signature on the application
is certification that the applicant is and intends to remain an
Alaska resident.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether HB 142 would remove that
statement [from the application].
MS. SCHERRER affirmed this as correct.
1:31:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to AS 43.23.005 (4) and asked whether this
72-hour provision would apply to college students out of state.
MS. SCHERRER state that the provision would apply to any
resident absent from the state for more than 2 years.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether HB 142 would require a student to
return to the state periodically for 72 hours to remain eligible
[for the pfd].
MS. SCHERRER stated that it would be so required.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether a student would be required
to provide evidence that he/she is a full-time student.
MS. SCHERRER affirmed this as correct.
1:33:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN shared his experience as a parent of college
students in which evidence of travel and activities while in
state to meet the 72-hour requirement would be collected and
prepared [to present to the PFDD as part of the application
packet]. He explained that the evidence provided had been met
with scrutiny by the PFDD.
CHAIR CLAMAN invited Representative Vance to continue her line
of questioning regarding repeals proposed in HB 142.
1:34:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE suggested that, if the committee's intent
would be to repeal the 72-hour requirement, then a full review
of all the implications should be taken into consideration. She
expressed her support of the requirement in which PFD applicants
are asked to certify whether they are Alaska residents and
intend to remain so.
1:35:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to AS 43.23.008 (17) (a)
pertaining to the 180-days and other allowable absences, and
asked whether it should be interpreted to mean that an applicant
may be absent from the state for 180 days and remain eligible
for a PFD.
MS. SCHERRER answered that an applicant may be absent from the
state for 180 days for an "allowable" absence as well as an
additional 180 days and remain eligible.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated his empathy for PFDD staff
being required to interpret and apply confusing language that
exists in statute. He asked where in statute an individual's
total absence from the state threshold exists, such as for an
individual who maintains a residence in another state.
MS. SCHERRER explained that an individual may be absent from the
state for up to 180 days if he/she maintains the intent to
remain an Alaska resident.
1:38:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked the bill's sponsor what his
opinion would be regarding any increase to the [180-day absence
allowed].
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated his understanding that the 180-day
threshold had not been contested with the exception of pilots,
who may work for 160 days and then desire to take a vacation
[out of state] and are unable to do so, and remain eligible for
the PFD. He stated that complexities amounting to a "pandora's
box" arose when the language was examined [for ways to address
the situation for pilots].
1:39:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked for an example that would illustrate
the implications of the proposed change on page 2, line 8
regarding active-duty military members.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY answered that, in 2018, 3,096 permanent
fund dividends were distributed to military service members who
no longer resided in Alaska and totaled $4.9 million. He
suggested that those individuals would no longer be eligible
should HB 142 pass. He added that residents deployed out of
state or are out of state due to TDY would remain eligible.
1:41:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that the 180-day requirement language as
requested by Representative Kreiss-Thompkins appears in AS
43.23.008 (d) and asked whether there exists another provision
in statute that may be sought by Representative Kreiss-
Thompkins.
MS. SCHERRER answered that there may exist other, combined
language to answer Representative Kreiss-Tomkins' question and
offered to follow up.
1:42:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his eagerness in
awaiting PFDD staff research on the matter and recalled his
understanding that, after five years of an individual residing
out of state for a qualified reason scrutiny should be invited
to that individual's claim to residency. He added that he had
some familiarity due to constituents in military service in his
district benefitting from the allowable absences for eligibility
of the PFD.
1:44:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to subsection 14 pertaining to
eligibility for Peace Corps volunteers and asked for a
comparison between active-duty military members and Peace Corps
members should HB 142 pass.
MS. SCHERRER answered that Peace Corps volunteers have an
additional 45-day absence allowed under current statute. She
suggested that no comparison could be made based on her
understanding of Representative Eastman's question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, should HB 142 pass, would an
individual who is serving in the peace Corps have an easier
eligibility threshold to qualify for the PFD than would an
active-duty members of the military.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Eastman whether his question
pertained to current law compared to the proposed bill as it
related to members of the Peace Corps. Representative Eastman
confirmed it was for the proposed bill.
MS. SCHERRER answered that there would be no change to members
of the Peace Corps should HB 142 pass. She added that active-
duty military members are separate and different from members of
the Peace Corps.
1:47:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked which eligibility requirement would
be easier to meet between the Peace Corps eligibility
requirement in Subsection 14 and the active-duty military
eligibility requirement in Subsection 3, or if they were the
same. He asked for a specific example demonstrating the
eligibility requirements for each.
MS. SCHERRER answered that offered that, should HB 142 pass, if
an active-duty military member was absent due to permanent
change of station, then the applicant would no longer be
eligible for the PFD. She added that eligibility requirements
would be met, if the individual was absent due to deployment or
temporary duty assignment.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the same would apply to
members of the Peace Corps.
MS. SCHERRER answered that her understanding is that the change
would only apply to members of the military.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, should HB 142 pass, whether
Subsections 10 and 11, permitting absences for service at
congressional offices outside of Alaska, would result in more
restrictive or less restrictive eligibility requirements than
those of active-duty military members.
MS. SCHERRER answered that [the proposed change] would be more
restrictive for military absences.
1:50:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 142.
1:50:32 PM
CHARLES MCKEE, Anchorage, Alaska, testified on subjects outside
the scope of the hearing on HB 142.
CHAIR CLAMAN ascertained that no one else wished to testify and
closed public testimony on HB 142.
1:53:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked PFDD staff whether specific language
pertaining to the 180-day absence requested by Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins had been identified.
MS. SCHERRER referred to AS 43.23.008 (17) which allows for any
individual's absence if the resident intends to remain a state
resident. She referred to 15 AAC 23.163 (b) further contains
language to support the statute.
1:54:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that different categories of
residency and absences exist and asked why members of the
military are held to a standard different than others such as
individuals working in congress or Peace Corps members.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY answered that the proposed legislation
would intend to bring equality for those residing in the state,
among the different categories of individuals who may be out of
state and maintain their intention to remain a resident of the
state. He added that the intention to remain is the common
factor among the groups listed in AS 43.23.008 (1-16) listing
exceptions. He shared his understanding that individuals
serving in the military who live in the state have expressed
their concern that other members who do not live in the state
who ore not on TDY or deployed remain eligible for the PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it would be sensible to
allow any of the approximate one dozen categories, including
Olympic athletes and congressional workers, to be subject to the
same priority for eligibility as military service members.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that the provision exempting
Olympic athletes had been scrutinized and it had been determined
that loopholes existed, and he suggested that language is
important. He added that some individuals may collect a PFD
despite never coming to Alaska.
1:59:08 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 142 was held over.