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, prime
sponsor of HB 142, provided brief introductory remarks.
4:46:22 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony.
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 said if that
was correct do, 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 closed public testimony.
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 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
his 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 a brief at-ease.
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, 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 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 not 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 was
consistent interpretations of the repeal language and its
potential ramifications.
EMILY NAUMAN, Deputy Director, Office of the Director,
Legislative Legal Services, asked Representative Vance to repeat
the question.
5:03:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE 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.
MS. NAUMAN said 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 who were 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 non-response 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 Division (the division) was
not able to break down the figures by type of absence.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to clarify whether the 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 what the 14,500-figure
corresponded to.
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 said 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 how long a service
member on military deployment or temporary duty travel (TDY)
could be absent for.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said it would depend on the military's
discretion. He explained that if an individual was 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 was 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 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
Alaskan 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 on
long periods of service.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS directed attention to 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 [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.
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 closed public testimony and announced that
HB 142 was held over.