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 |
---|