Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
05/04/2021 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 | |
| SB28 | |
| HJR7 | |
| HB73 | |
| HB124 | |
| HB142 | |
| HB5 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 73 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 142-PFD ELIGIBILITY
4:44:59 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).]
4:45:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 142, provided brief introductory remarks.
4:46:22 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on CSHB 142(JUD).
4:47:12 PM
BERT HOUGHTALING stated, "From what I've heard of this
particular bill, I'm not too much against what is being done."
He understood that the bill would make it easier for those
working out of state to file for their PFD, as well as further
clarify the eligibility criteria for the PFD. He added that if
that was correct, then he was supportive of the proposed
legislation. He concluded by addressing HB 73 and HJR 7.
4:49:43 PM
NOLAN HEATH informed the committee that he was a Vietnam
veteran. He believed that service members who were assigned to
a base outside of Alaska should not be eligible for a dividend
even if they maintained residency in Alaska. However, if those
service members returned to Alaska, they should be allowed to
reestablish their eligibility, he opined.
4:51:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, after ascertaining that no one else wished
to testify, closed public testimony on CSHB 142(JUD).
4:52:12 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referenced a letter from the Department of
Revenue (DOR), dated 4/28/21 [hard copy included in the
committee packet], which provided responses to questions asked
in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. The third paragraph
on page 1 specified that AS 43.23.008 and 15 AAAC 23.163
contained the language allowing snowbirds to be absent from
Alaska for up to 180 days. He asked why the 180-day threshold
was placed in regulation as opposed to statute. Further, he
questioned whether DOR could theoretically increase or decrease
that threshold through the regulatory process.
4:53:54 PM
BOBBI SCHERRER, Appeals Manager, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, Department of Revenue, stated that from 1999 to 2003,
the language was found under AS 43.23.008(13)(A); however, in
2004, the statute was changed to its present form. Regarding
Chair Kreiss-Tomkins' second question, she offered to follow up
with the requested information.
4:54:53 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS questioned whether a piece of legislation
removed that language from law in 2004.
MS. SCHERRER said she did not know and offered to follow up with
the requested information.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his surprise that this policy was
in regulation rather than statute.
4:55:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY clarified that the 180-day threshold was
presently in statute. He opined that increasing the length of
allowable absence for snowbirds could affect the economy if they
chose to remain in another state for a longer amount of time.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that his predilection would be to
tighten the limit so that people would need to spend a "strong
majority" of the year in Alaska in order to qualify for
eligibility.
4:56:52 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:57 p.m. to 4:59 p.m.
4:59:00 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS thanked Representative Tarr for directing
his attention to several statutes during the at-ease.
4:59:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referenced page 1, paragraph 4 of the
letter from DOR [included in the committee packet], which
indicated that the repeal of AS 43.23.0005(a)(4), AS
43.23.005(f), and AS 43.23.008(e), per Section 3 of CSHB
142(JUD), would increase the number of eligible applicants each
year that were absent on allowable absences under AS
43.23.008(a). She inquired about any unintended consequences
that may occur as a result of the repeal language in Section 3.
Further, she asked the bill sponsor to speak to his intent.
5:01:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said the intent of the bill was to make
PFD eligibility equitable. He added that "not everybody gets to
move from the state and keep collecting the permanent fund
dividend." He explained that military members had been allowed
to leave the state with the intent to return while still
collecting their PFD; however, that intent was not always
fulfilled. He added that other people may have had the intent
to leave Alaska and return but they were not allowed the same
privilege. Therefore, the intent of the proposed legislation
was to ensure that the dividend was being disbursed to people
residing in the state, he indicated.
5:02:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she would like to hear from both
Legislative Legal Services and DOR to ensure that there were
consistent interpretations of the repeal language and its
potential ramifications. She directed attention to the repeal
language in Section 3 of CSHB 142(JUD). She inquired about the
full impact of that language, as DOR had indicated that
repealing those statutes would apply to all allowable absences
under AS 43.23.008(a) and that the division would apply the law
consistently and uniformly.
5:03:05 PM
EMILY NAUMAN, Deputy Director, Office of the Director,
Legislative Legal Services, responded that currently, a person
was allowed to be absent for the reasons listed under AS
43.23.008; however, AS 43.25.005 required eligible individuals
to have been present in the state for at least 72 consecutive
hours during the prior two years before the current dividend
year even if they claimed an allowable absence. She stated that
the proposed legislation would repeal that requirement, so if
people were out of state on an allowable absence, they would no
longer be required to prove they had returned to Alaska for at
least 72 consecutive hours.
5:05:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that the repeal language would
change the annual number of eligible applicants. He questioned
whether that overall number would increase or decrease.
MS. SCHERRER stated that because the repeal of AS
43.23.005(a)(4) would impact all allowable absence types [under
AS 43.23.008(a)], the 14,500 individuals claiming an allowable
absence would no longer be required to prove they had returned
to Alaska for 72 consecutive hours to prove their intent.
5:06:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how many individuals would be
eligible to receive a dividend should the bill pass.
MS. SCHERRER reported that of the 14,500 individuals claiming an
allowable absence, 2,000 were denied for nonresponse or failure
to provide proof of physical presence in the state for at least
72 consecutive hours. She explained that those 2,000 people
would become eligible if the bill were to pass, while the
remaining 12,500 would maintain eligibility, but would no longer
be required to provide that proof.
5:08:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how many military members would be
denied eligibility if the bill were to pass.
MS. SCHERRER said the Permanent Fund Dividend Division was not
able to break down the figures by type of absence.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to clarify whether repealing the 72-
hour requirement would reduce the number of eligible applicants
by 12,500.
MS. SCHERRER stated that the number of active-duty military
members who would no longer be eligible for the PFD would amount
to 10,000 per year.
5:11:45 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to clarify that which the 14,500-
figure corresponded.
MS. SCHERRER restated that 14,500 was the number of individuals
per year who claimed an allowable absence under AS
43.23.009(a)(1-16) and were required to prove they had returned
to Alaska for at least 72 consecutive hours.
5:12:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how long a person could be absent
from the state for education or training purposes under the
proposed legislation.
MS. SCHERRER answered that the bill would not change the other
allowable absence types. She directed attention to AS
43.23.008(d), which specified that people who had been absent
from the state for more than 180 days in each of the five
preceding qualifying years must prove that they had been
physically present in the state for at least 30 cumulative days
during the past five years to maintain residency in Alaska
through the PFD program.
5:13:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how long a military member could be
absent from Alaska.
MS. SCHERRER said the proposed legislation would require that
the service member be absent on deployment or a temporary duty
assignment. She believed that there was no specific time limit
if a military member was absent for either of those reasons;
however, like the other allowable absences, a temporary duty
assignment or deployment would still have to comply with AS
43.23.008(d).
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the bill sponsor about the
allowable length of absence for a service member on military
deployment or temporary duty travel (TDY).
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY answered that it would depend on the
military's discretion. He explained that if an individual were
deployed for several years while based out of Alaska, that
person would still be eligible.
5:15:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about an astronaut's eligibility
if he/she were in space.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY contemplated whether the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) would be categorized
as military.
5:17:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA) had expressed concern about the 10,000
military members who would lose eligibility if the bill were to
pass.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY relayed that the Veterans of Foreign Wars
(VFW) and American Legion believed that if people had left
Alaska, they should no longer receive a dividend.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY was concerned that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Commissioned Officer Corps and
the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps had
not been allowed to receive a PFD. She expressed interest in
proposing a future amendment that would remedy that.
5:20:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said he shared that concern and welcomed
further discussion on the issue. He understood that eligibility
was addressed under AS 43.23.005.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expounded that she was concerned about
Alaska residents who served in the NOAA Commissioned Officer
Corps and USPHS Commissioned Corps. She believed that they
should qualify to receive a dividend despite being absent for
long periods of service.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS directed attention to AS 43.23.008(a)(1),
which was the allowable absence for receiving secondary or
postsecondary education on a full-time basis. He asked whether
that would include graduate school.
MS. SCHERRER answered yes, a person in graduate school would
fall under that category.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many individuals qualified for
that allowable absence.
MS. SCHERRER offered to follow up with the requested
information.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS requested a list of how many people
qualified under each respective allowable absence listed in AS
43.23.08(a)(1-16).
5:23:38 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what proportion of allowable absences
claimed under AS 43.23.008(a)(1) were for graduate school or
something other than undergraduate, vocational, or technical
education.
MS. SCHERRER believed that the majority of individuals claiming
that allowable absence were four-year college students.
5:24:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether there was a "tabular
version of conformance" that was used in managing this data that
could be provided to the committee.
MS. SCHERRER offered to follow up with the requested
information.
5:25:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed concern that the proposed
legislation would allow those claiming allowable absences, such
as education, work, or the Peace Corps, for example, to be out
of state for five years, but the same opportunity would not be
allowed for service members. He believed the bill was
preferencing other service over military service. He questioned
whether that could be more equitable.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY welcomed a friendly amendment that would
address that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that a military member may
have a harder time fulfilling the requirement under AS
43.23.008(d)(1), which would allow an individual who was absent
for five years to show proof that they had been present in the
state for at least 30 cumulative days. He reiterated his
concern that service members could be at a disadvantage.
5:28:46 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS reopened public testimony on CSHB 142(JUD).
5:29:03 PM
LATRICE WILLIAMS informed the committee that she was a prior
active-duty military member who had been stationed in Alaska.
She believed that only people who physically resided in Alaska
should be eligible for the PFD. Additionally, service members
who were stationed in Alaska for three years, for example,
should also be eligible. She maintained her belief that service
members who were assigned to a different location outside of
Alaska should lose their eligibility.
5:30:46 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, after ascertaining there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on CSHB 142(JUD).
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that CSHB 142(JUD) was held over.