Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/29/2022 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 | |
| HB271 | |
| HB251 | |
| HB203 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 271 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 203 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 142-PFD ELIGIBILITY
3:10:03 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).]
3:10:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 142, labeled 32-LS0491\W, Nauman,
3/28/22, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
3:11:20 PM
JEFF STEPP, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, provided an explanation of changes in
the proposed CS, ("Version W"), on behalf of Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins. He explained that Version W included three
major changes: Firstly, the 72-hour rule was changed to a 168-
hour rule; Secondly, Version W deleted language to allow active-
duty members of the armed service who were otherwise eligible
and deployed or traveling on a temporary duty assignment (TDY)
to remain eligible for a Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) if they
were not physically residing in Alaska immediately before the
absence
3:14:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN interjected to ask what section Mr. Stepp
was referring to.
MR. STEPP clarified that the deleted language in reference was
on page 2, lines 10-22.
3:14:21 PM
MR. STEPP continued to highlight the changes in Version W. He
indicated that the third substantive change was the elimination
of repeal language on page 3, line 26 [of Version G]. He
stated that the following sections would remain in statute: AS
43.23.005(a)(4), AS 43.23.005(f), AS 43.23.008(e).
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered broader commentary pertaining to
the elimination of the repealers, indicating that the general
intent was to provide a "cleaner" version, which would be
helpful for the amendment process. Further, he commented on the
change to from 72 hours to 168 hours, suggesting that it was in
alignment with the bill sponsor's intent.
3:17:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why 168 hours was favorable to 72
hours.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that there was an eligibility
exemption that could be claimed if an individual were to return
to Alaska for 72 hours (three days) once in a two-year period.
He said the idea was to lengthen that requirement to ensure that
PFD-eligible individuals had a true connection to Alaska.
3:18:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested changing the 168-hour
requirement to one month or keeping it at 72 hours. He asked
why one week (168 hours) was significant.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS conveyed that those claiming eligible
exemptions were attesting under threat of perjury that they
maintained a connection to Alaska and intended to remain in
Alaska. He believed that people who truly had a connection to
Alaska were returning to the state for at least a week in a two-
year period rather than a three-day weekend. He suggested that
increasing the threshold by a small amount created more of a
burden for those who were qualifying for the exemption under
less than good faith.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN urged the committee to take a closer look
at the exemptions in statute to better capture the legislature's
intent.
3:24:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that there were no
repealers in Version W.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN in response to Representative Eastman,
opined that it may be difficult for college students to achieve
a consecutive 168-hour visit to Alaska. Additionally, he
pointed out that if PFDs were in the $3,000-$4,000 range, there
would be an economic benefit to booking a trip to Alaska for a
three-day weekend to claim the eligibility requirement; however,
a PFD of $2,000 would make that scenario less appealing. He
indicated that he had some "misgivings" about the 168-hour
requirement.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he would be happy to reexamine that
threshold. In response to Representative Claman's concern about
college students' ability to return home, he shared his
understanding that dependents could also qualify for the PFD if
their head of household qualified as a PFD-eligible person.
3:27:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE wondered whether the division had an
"impact" on eligibility with the changes reflected in Version W.
3:27:56 PM
ANNA MACKINNON, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
Department of Revenue (DOR), stated that the allowable absence
exemption would be a policy call. In response to Chair Kreiss-
Tomkins statement, she clarified that children would need to
return to the state to qualify for a dividend even if their
parent returned.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged that he was mistaken.
3:28:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about how the change from 72 hours
to 168 hours would affect the number of eligible PFD recipients.
MS. MACKINNON shared her belief that it would reduce the number
of eligible Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what reasons applicants provided for
the 72-hour return to Alaska.
MS. MACKINNON asked Representative Vance to define "reason."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she was trying to understand the
justification that people gave for claiming the allowable
absence.
MS. MACKINNON stated that military families stationed out of
state were the largest group to claim that exemption; the second
largest was students attending apprenticeship programs or
colleges.
3:31:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the exemption that allowed
military members who were deployed or traveling on a TDY to
maintain their eligibility would "solve the problem."
MS. MACKINNON indicated that the language on page 2, line 21-27,
would decrease the availability of a military family to qualify
for a dividend because the allowable absence would require the
serving member to be on TDY versus a permanent assignment in
another location. She further noted that according to the
language on page 2, lines 25-27, a spouse may not travel with a
military member who was traveling on TDY.
3:34:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor
of HB 142, in response to a question from Representative
Eastman, stated that a person must gain initial PFD eligibility
by living in Alaska for one year. He stated that after claiming
eligibility, a person would be able to maintain that eligibility
by claiming the exemptions outlined on page 2. He deferred to
Ms. Mackinnon.
3:36:41 PM
MS. MACKINNON asked Representative McCarty to restate the
question.
3:38:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that he was concerned about the
eligibility of someone who was deployed out of state for six or
seven months, which would not qualify as TDY.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY reiterated that an individual must live
in Alaska for one year before qualifying for eligibility. He
deferred to Ms. Mackinnon.
MS. MACKINNON said the current provision allowed military
personnel to be deployed out of state for a period of up to 5
years with the following intent: the intent to return, the 72-
hour rule, and the 5-year rule. She added that Version W would
shorten that allowance.
3:41:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked which provision in the bill
pertained to the one-year eligibility requirement that
Representative McCarty had referenced.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said it was an existing requirement that
was not included in the bill, as there was no need to change the
existing statute. He asked Ms. Mackinnon whether he was correct
in that an individual who was in Alaska on a permanent change of
station (PCS) would have to live in the state for one year to
become eligible for the PFD.
MS. MACKINNON confirmed that to initially qualify for a
dividend, an individual must be present in Alaska for one year.
3:43:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection.
3:44:04 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Story,
Claman, Vance, Kaufman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of the
adoption of the proposed CS for HB 142, labeled 32-LS0491\W,
Nauman, 3/28/22. Representative Eastman voted against it.
Therefore, Version W was adopted as the working document by a
vote of 6-1.
3:45:06 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the bill would be held over.