Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/25/2020 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 | |
| HB239 | |
| HB190 | |
| SB80 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 239 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 190-PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCES
3:54:57 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 190, "An Act relating to
allowable absences for a permanent fund dividend; and providing
for an effective date."
3:55:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 190, as prime sponsor, by paraphrasing from the
sponsor statement, which read:
HB 190: Provides for an exemption for an absence of or
beyond 180 days for an otherwise eligible resident.
The main provision of HB 190 ensures that an otherwise
eligible resident can be absent when they are
providing continuous medical treatment or providing
care for a family member as described in sections (5)
and (6) of AS 43.23.008.
HB 190 puts into statute this additional protection,
which is not currently addressed by the statutes or
policy.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO explained that statute already provides
an exemption for the medical leave described; the proposed
legislation clarifies that when circumstances cause the
accumulative time of an absence to exceed 180 days, the person
would be still eligible for a permanent fund dividend (PFD). He
offered that the number of people affected by this provision
would be low.
3:59:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON asked for confirmation that a person who
is out of state for an extended period for medical treatment
does not lose his/her eligibility for a PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered yes, if the person has a
referral.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON asked for clarification that the
proposed legislation would ensure that a caregiver accompanying
the person receiving medical treatment would also be eligible
for a PFD and is currently denied.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered that the caregiver is not
necessarily denied. The situation that HB 190 would address is
when a person, who has been out of state for an extended period,
suddenly finds himself/herself in the position of needing to
provide the care and consequently goes well beyond the
accumulative period allowed - 180 days.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS restated the answer: AS 43.23.008(a) -
the statue covering allowable absences - currently provides an
exemption for someone who is sick out of state or someone who is
providing care for someone who is sick. The proposed
legislation would allow for "stacking of exemptions"; the time
spent out of state caring for someone who is sick would not be
counted in the 180 days allowed.
4:01:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 3, lines 9-10, of HB 190,
which read "... the spouse, minor dependent, or disabled
dependent of the eligible resident... " and asked about an only
adult child who leaves the state to care for parents, and the
absence results in an extended period. She questioned whether
the sponsor considered other categories of caregivers.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered that it is his hope that HB 190
would cover the situation she presented.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked what changes would be needed for
the dividend application under HB 190.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO offered that the PFD Division
[Department of Revenue (DOR)] would need to answer that
question.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the proposed legislation
states "designated caregiver" for the extended absence
exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO replied no. He acknowledged that it is
the responsibility of the legislature, not the PFD Division, to
ensure clarity in statute.
4:06:40 PM
ANNE WESKE, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) Division,
Department of Revenue (DOR), in response to the question from
Representative Hopkins, stated that the PFD application form
would not change under HB 190; the only change would be in
processing the application; and there would be no extra cost for
processing applications in this manner.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the application would have
additional checkboxes or whether the applicant would need to
appeal a denial.
MS. WESKE responded that because the change under the proposed
legislation would apply to such a small population, the division
would resolve the issue at the eligibility level. She
maintained that currently people explain the reason for an
absence on the application; therefore, personnel know the reason
for the absence already; it would just be a matter of them
following the new statute.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the applicant would need to
know that this exemption was available.
MS. WESKE replied that the division already accounts for a
medical absence as being allowable; the other absence would be
considered vacation, which the applicant is already indicating
on the current application. She said currently staff see a
combination of "other" [which includes business or vacation] and
"health." She stated that if the "other vacation" exceeds 45
days, the applicant is denied status. Under HB 190, the
application would look the same, but staff would be able to
consider the applicant for a PFD if the absence is between 45
and 180 days.
4:09:30 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS referred to the Paul Hall [Center for Maritime
Training and Education] apprenticeship program and the recent
denials by the state for PFDs for participants in the program
who have long received PFDs. He asked that the PFD Division
give his office guidance on providing appropriate clarifying
language to ensure that the program participants would no longer
experience discrimination. He offered that the state enacted
regulations in 2014 that conflicted with statute and should be
repealed. He mentioned proposing an amendment to HB 190 to
ensure that the state does not discriminate against industry-
funded programs.
MS. WESKE responded that the division has provided wording to
the Department of Law (DOL) to remedy that issue. She
maintained that there was no regulation change in 2014; she was
provided a list of names [of participants of the program] and
none had ever applied for a PFD in the history of the program.
She maintained that she is researching the situation. She
offered to provide guidance to Representative Fields as
requested.
4:11:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for an approximate number of
applications that the proposed legislation would address.
MS. WESKE estimated about 100.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether clarifying language on
"designated caregiver" would be helpful to the division.
MS. WESKE answered that the division would probably need
guidance from DOL on the specification of the role of the
individual.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the allowable absence under
AS 43.23.008(a)(17), which read in part:
(17) for any reason consistent with the individual's
intent to remain a state resident, provided the
absence or cumulative absences do not exceed
(A) 180 days in addition to any absence or
cumulative absences claimed under (3) of this
subsection if the individual is not claiming an
absence under (1), (2), or (4) (16) of this
subsection;
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for an approximate number of
Alaskans who qualify under subparagraph (A) or the net outlay of
PFDs to individuals qualifying under this exemption.
MS. WESKE restated the question: How many individuals were
absent from Alaska between 90 and 180 days for an "other"
reason; that is, they did not qualify for any of the allowable
absences [listed under AS 43.23.008(a)(1)-(16)]?
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified by saying that for someone on
vacation for 89 days and in Alaska every other day of the year,
the application is handled under the normal approval process.
MS. WESKE agreed.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the approval process when
someone is on vacation from 91-179 days and in Alaska every
other day of the year.
MS. WESKE replied that the PFD Division would request flight
records from the applicant and check for any indicators of
residency ties in the area visited. The Legislature has
determined - by statute - that any length of time above 90 days
is worth further scrutiny.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for confirmation of his
understanding that under this "other" category, someone could be
gone from Alaska for 179 days and continue to receive a PFD if
the checks don't identify any indicators of residency in another
state.
MS. WESKE answered, that's correct.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked to be provided with the number of
Alaskans who qualify for the exemption [under AS
43.23.008(a)(17)(A)] and the total amount dispersed through
those PFDs.
4:16:44 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS also asked for the number of individuals
who would qualify for the exemption under HB 190.
MS. WESKE offered to provide that information.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for the number of denials in the last
few years due to caregivers being out of state to care for
significant others.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that he has heard that a U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG) member and his/her family, who live in Alaska
and collect PFDs, could continue to collect PFDs for the
duration of the service member's tenure in the USCG even after
they have left the state. He asked whether that was true or
urban legend.
MS. WESKE answered that it is urban legend. The family would
still need to show ties to Alaska; they could have no residency
ties to any other area; and they must return to Alaska within
five years for 30 consecutive days and return to the state every
other year for 72 hours.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for any indicators of residency ties
besides buying a house, having a homestead exemption, and
voting.
MS. WESKE added enrollment of children in school, securing a
lease, employment, and obtaining a driver's license or
identification.
MS. WESKE clarified that the items she listed are how a person
in Alaska could establish a tie; a job in another state does not
always indicate a residency tie.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for the reference for the
requirements of "72 hours" and "30 days" and asked why 72 hours
was chosen.
MS. WESKE agreed to provide that information.
[HB 190 was held over.]