Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
02/08/2022 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 | |
| HB142 | |
| HB94 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 142-PFD ELIGIBILITY
3:05:26 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first 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).]
3:06:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY, Alaska State Legislature,
reintroduced HB 142, as the prime sponsor. He presented the
sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Committee Substitute for House Bill 142 (CSHB 142)
limits the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) eligibility
of active-duty military members to those who are
physically stationed in Alaska only.
This bill eliminates the allowable absence in AS
43.23.008(3)(A) of a member serving on active duty in
the Military in the United State Armed Forces, and
their dependents, stationed in another state or
country.
CSHB 142 specifies an allowable absence of a member
serving on active duty in the U.S Military, who is
stationed in the State of Alaska, but is, or has been,
out of the state on deployment orders or a temporary
duty assignment (TDY.)
Future intent is a difficult thing to presume and
define. Because of this, CSHB 142 also eliminates the
allowable absence eligibility criteria listed in As.
43.23.008(e) that requires the Department of Revenue,
Permanent Fund Division to consider factors that show
an absent applicant's intention of returning to the
state indefinitely in the future after a permanent
change of station (PCS). Those considerations would no
longer be included in determining eligibility of
military service members, or their family members, who
have moved out of state.
It is the sponsor's intent that every eligible Alaskan
who currently and physically resides in the state of
Alaska receive a PFD. Alaskans serving in the
Military, and their dependents, who have physically
moved out of the state will no longer be eligible to
receive a PFD until they return to, and reside in,
Alaska once again.
In 2018 the state dispersed 3,096 dividends to service
members who were out of the state more than 180 days,
who may or may not return someday, distributing over
$4,900,00 out of state. CSHB 142 will ensure that
Alaska PFD monies are reserved for Alaskans who
currently and physically reside within the state of
Alaska.
3:09:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY deferred to the Permanent Fund Dividend
Division (the division) to discuss some developments that
occurred since the committee last heard the bill.
3:10:16 PM
COREY BIGELOW, Operations Manager, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, expressed the divisions concern that the repeal
language included in CSHB 142(JUD) could impact more than the
intended group of Alaskans. He asked whether the committee
would like to hear the specifics of this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN confirmed that he would like to hear the
specifics.
3:11:31 PM
MR. BIGELOW addressed the repeal of AS 43.23.005(f), which has
two [paragraphs]: paragraph (1) authorizes the commissioner to
waive the requirement of a(4); paragraph (2) speaks to
individuals in the custody of the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS). He recommended that paragraph (2) [AS
43.23.005(f)(2)] be excluded from the repeal language.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that AS 43.23.005(f)(2)
refers to individuals in the custody of DHSS in accordance with
a court order; therefore, excluding that provision from the
repeal language would preserve the commissioners prerogative to
wave the durational residency requirement in order for such
persons to qualify for the permanent fund dividend (PFD). He
asked if that is accurate.
MR. BIGELOW answered yes.
3:14:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that the divisions
intent is to repeal AS 43.23.005(f)(1), thereby keeping AS
43.23.005(f)(2).
MR. BIGELOW answered yes.
3:15:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY clarified that his intent is not to
repeal AS 43.23.005(f) at all. He proceeded to summarize the
[proposed] changes to the bill in its current form.
3:17:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that both the division and the
bill sponsor have conveyed suggested changes. He opined that
this method of editing seems difficult. He recommended that the
bill sponsor present a new CS that incorporates the desired
changes.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said hes open to that suggestion. He
shared his belief that these statutes are poorly written and
convoluted, which makes the process more challenging than it
would otherwise be. He deferred to the division to innumerate
its input.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY agreed to this method.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that AS 43.23.005(f)(2) had
already been addressed by Mr. Bigelow. He invited Mr. Bigelow
to continue relaying the divisions thoughts on the bill.
3:19:59 PM
MR. BIGELOW obliged. He recalled that in addition to AS
43.23.005(f)(2), the division had conveyed concern about AS
43.23.008(e), which speaks specifically to determining an
individuals intent. He acknowledged that determining a
persons intent is difficult; however, the statute allows a
benchmark, or a way to measure by requesting documentation to
show that the individual has taken an action consistent with
establishing or maintaining residency in Alaska. He explained
removing the intent would potentially allow for more Alaskans to
be determined as eligible for the PFD because the intent portion
would no longer be required. He reiterated that the intent
would be to broaden the pathway whereas currently, the bill
would restrict the pathway for a specific group of individuals.
3:22:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that the divisions
recommendation with respect to the bill is not to repeal AS
43.23.008(e).
MR. BIGELOW confirmed.
3:23:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she was having trouble finding AS
43.23.008(e).
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS read AS 43.23.008(e) as follows: to
determine whether an individual intends to return and remain in
the state indefinitely, the department shall consider all
relevant factors including followed by a variety of factors.
He reiterated that the statutes are rather long and unwieldy.
3:24:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN inquired about the departments position
on the repeal of AS 43.23.005(a)(4).
MR. BIGELOW opined that the AS 43.23.005(a)(4) would be the
ideal location to (indisc.) the language.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that for the purposes of
the bill, AS 43.23.005(a)(4) should be repealed.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that in order to
fulfill the intent put forward by Representative McCarty, the
divisions analysis is that repealing AS 43.23.005(a)(4) would
be consistent with that intent.
MR. BIGELOW confirmed that utilizing or potentially amending AS
43.23.005(a)(4) would be the bill sponsors best route for
reaching his desired intent.
3:26:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR questioned whether consolidating the
individual allowable absences under AS 43.23.005(a)(4) would be
the recommended method.
MR. BIGELOW believed that amending the language on page 2, lines
8-11, would be the best way to achieve the bill sponsors
desired intent.
3:28:42 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited Representative McCarty to speak on
how the intent of the bill evolved over the interim.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY conveyed that the intent of the bill is
to stop people who have left the state from collecting a
dividend. He said currently, an individual can leave the state
and depend on his/her intent to return to qualify for a
dividend. He directed attention to page 2, lines 7-13,
indicating that military members who are away on TDY or
deployment should still receive a dividend; however, if a
military member is moving to another base outside of Alaska,
he/she should not longer be able to continue claiming residency.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the sponsor had considered
mirroring existing residency requirements for hunting and
fishing residency licenses or other well-vetted, well-
established residency thresholds for other definitions of state
residency.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said he had inquired about residency as
it pertains to elections.
3:32:21 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited closing questions from committee
members.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about the provision pertaining to
employment in the aviation industry and how that would be
prioritized in relation to the military provision.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY acknowledged that the primary intent of
the bill is to address military members who moved out of state.
3:34:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that CSHB 142(JUD) would be held
over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 142 Response Letter to H STA 5.7.21 PFD.pdf |
HSTA 2/8/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB 142 Fiscal Note DOR-PFD-2-4-22.pdf |
HSTA 2/8/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB 94 Fiscal Note VAR-EXE-2-5-22.pdf |
HSTA 2/8/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 94 |
| HB 94 Additional Info Hubzone-Program-Improvements-FAQ.pdf |
HSTA 2/8/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 94 |