Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/09/2012 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB311 | |
| HB190 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 311 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 190-PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCE
9:33:02 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business was
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 190, "An Act relating to
allowable absences from the state for purposes of eligibility
for permanent fund dividends; and providing for an effective
date."
9:33:40 AM
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 190 on behalf of Representative Feige,
sponsor. He noted that the proposed legislation had been heard
in 2011. He stated that the intent of the original bill was to
address an injustice pertaining to military personnel [who were
denied an allowable absence related to receiving a permanent
fund dividend (PFD)] after [being out of state] for 10 years,
even though members of Congress and their staff continue to be
qualified to receive a PFD beyond 10 years out of the state. He
said numerous legal issues were brought forth, and the bill
sponsor tried changing the 10-year limit to a 20-year limit
through a sponsor substitute. Subsequently, he said, discussion
with the Permanent Fund Division helped to formulate a committee
substitute, which would provide "a more effective way to deal
with the issue of allowable absences across the board."
9:35:26 AM
MR. PASCHALL gave a PowerPoint presentation entitled, "Permanent
Dividend Allowable Absences," as an explanation of how the
current law came to be. He said in 1982, allowable absences
were addressed through the definition of an Alaska resident, and
there were only five criteria. By 1997, he said, the criteria
had increased to nine, and the definition of residency referred
to AS 01.10.055. In 1998, he noted, the legislature made
significant overhauls to statute: the meaning of state resident
referred back to [AS 01.10.055]; allowable absences were
addressed in a separate section; the number of allowable
absences continued to increase; and the authority of the
commissioner [of the Department of Revenue] to adopt other
allowable absences was removed. He said there was also a
provision put in place that addressed those out of the state for
certain periods of time during single year, but not on an
allowable absence. He said the ten-year rule was also put into
place at this time. Mr. Paschall said his research did not
uncover any particular reason for the 10-year rule.
MR. PASCHALL pointed out a few changes made to the allowable
absences since 1998, including ["serving under foreign or
coastal articles of employment aboard an oceangoing vessel of
the United States merchant marine"].
9:39:37 AM
CHAIR LYNN said the spouses of military personnel often follow
the military members overseas. He offered his understanding
that "that" would cover the spouses, the military members, and
their minor children.
MR. PASCHALL confirmed that is correct.
9:40:27 AM
MR. PASCHALL continued with the PowerPoint presentation. He
said HB 190 would bring regulations into statute, which would
reduce subjectivity on the part of hearing officers. He noted
that there is a typographical error in the PowerPoint: [on the
first of ten pages labeled, "Allowable Absence After HB 190"],
"(c)" should read "(e)". He indicated that the only alteration
of the allowable absences was the removal of the 10-year rule.
MR. PASCHALL drew attention to the conclusion of the PowerPoint
presentation, regarding language provided by Legislative Legal
and Research Services to amend AS 43.23.008 by adding
subsections (e) and (f). That language, [in Version R, Section
2, on page 3, line 13, through page 4, line 14], read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
(e) After an individual has been absent from the
state for more than 180 days in each of the five
preceding qualifying years, the department shall
presume that the individual is no longer a state
resident. The individual may rebut this presumption
by providing documentation to the department that
establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that
(1) the individual was physically present in
the state for at least 30 cumulative days during the
past five years; and
(2) the individual is a state resident as
defined in AS 43.23.095(7).
(f) To determine whether an individual intends to
return and remain in the state indefinitely, the
department shall consider
(1) the length of time the individual was
absent from the state compared to the length of time
the individual was physically present in the state;
(2) the frequency and duration of voluntary
return trips to the state during the past five years;
(3) whether the individual's intent to
return to and remain in the state is conditioned on
future events beyond the individual's control, such as
the financial circumstances of the individual or the
ability of the individual to find employment in the
state;
(4) the ties the individual has established
with the state or another jurisdiction, as
demonstrated by
(A) maintenance of a home;
(B) payment of resident taxes;
(C) registration of a vehicle;
(D) registration to vote and voting
history;
(E) acquisition of a driver's license,
business license, or professional license; and
(F) receipt of benefits under a claim
of residency in the state or another jurisdiction;
(5) the priority that the individual gave
the state on an employment assignment preference list,
including a list used by military personnel;
(6) whether the individual made a career
choice or chose a career path that does not allow the
individual to reside in or return to the state.
MR. PASCHALL pointed out that registering a vehicle in Alaska is
an indicator of someone's intent to live in the state, whereas
registering a vehicle outside of Alaska is not. In response to
Representative Petersen, Mr. Paschall opined that someone with
vehicles licensed in Alaska and another state is indicating
he/she is not likely to return to Alaska. He added, "It's all
the factors together that make the final determination."
9:45:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned the rationale behind allowing
someone who takes voluntary employment outside of Alaska for 15
or 20 years to continuing receiving the PFD as a resident of
Alaska.
9:46:05 AM
MR. PASCHALL said he thinks Representative Seaton's question
ultimately leads to questioning whether there should be an
allowable absence, which is a decision that was made by the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that whereas he can understand
exempting members of Congress who are elected by the public to
serve outside Alaska for extended periods of time, he is
uncomfortable [giving allowable absences to] people who make a
voluntary choice to leave Alaska for an extended period of time,
such as Congressional staff or someone who chooses to spend 30
years in the Peace Corps. He said, "I just want to know the
rationale behind eliminating at least a 10-year limit on that."
9:49:01 AM
MR. PASCHALL reminded Representative Seaton that the impetus for
the bill was the sponsor's becoming aware of an injustice
wherein those Alaskans serving out of state in the military did
not receive the same PFD-related exemption as members of
Congress and their staff received. He said all the exemptions
beyond the 10-year rule that are currently in place are for
individuals who choose career paths that take them out of the
state, including those Alaskans who choose to serve in Congress.
He said the sponsor is looking to establish procedure. He
continued as follows:
By taking this procedure that's been very, very
effective in regulation in reducing the number of
allowable absences over ... the years, by putting it
in statute it will be even more effective, and we were
able to tighten it just a little bit at the same time.
So, the actual number of people receiving PFDs on
allowable absences should probably decrease after the
five years.
9:50:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked for confirmation that the bill
would codify language that is currently in regulation.
MR. PASCHALL answered that that is basically correct, but some
modifications would be made, such as using the word "home"
versus "property".
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he shares Representative Seaton's
concerns regarding "the repealer," and said he would like more
discussion.
MR. PASCHALL stated that he agrees with the bill sponsor that HB
190 is a good way to deal with the current injustice among
classes of people, but said the policy discussion is the purview
of the committee.
9:53:25 AM
CHAIR LYNN reopened public testimony.
9:53:45 AM
JOSEPHINE DAVIES, testifying on behalf of herself, asked the
committee to consider further allowable absences. She shared
that in 2010, she was out of state for a couple of weeks past
the allowed 180 days to care for her father, who was
unexpectedly hospitalized and, at the same time, she was
hospitalized for an unexpected surgical procedure. She directed
attention to paragraph (6) of Section 1, on page 2, lines 10-13,
which addresses "providing care for a parent, spouse, sibling,
child, or stepchild", and she suggested that the language be
amended to include Alaska residents who leave the state to take
care of parents who are not from Alaska and to take care of in-
laws. Ms. Davies directed attention to paragraph (17),
subparagraph (C), on page 3, lines 10-12, which would allow:
(C) 45 days in addition to any
absence or cumulative absences claimed under (1)-(16)
of this subsection if the individual is claiming an
absence under (4)-(16) of this subsection.
MS. DAVIES said her daughter is getting married in 2012, and she
expects to go Outside for 30 days to help her daughter, in
addition to time spent helping parents. She said she would like
the committee to consider extending the 45 days to 90 days.
9:58:10 AM
CHAIR LYNN said HB 190 is primarily directed toward the
military, but said Ms. Davies' good points could be considered
in other legislation.
9:58:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that under HB
190, language related to a 10-year cap would be repealed, and
that repeal would affect everyone, not just the military.
9:58:57 AM
MR. PASCHALL pointed out that according to the Permanent Fund
Division, of the 16,000 people that were given allowable
absences in 2010, the 10-year rule only applied to 187 people.
He stated, "It's not a large group of people receiving the PFD
for a long period of time under the allowable absence; they've
already been weeded out. And the belief is ... [that] having
this in statute will ... weed them out even better."
10:00:37 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 190 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|