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 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 8, 2022
3:03 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative James Kaufman
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 142
"An Act relating to eligibility for the permanent fund
dividend."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
"An Act prohibiting the use of certain restrictive provisions in
leases of space for business use in certain federally
established zones; and adding an unlawful act to the Alaska
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 142
SHORT TITLE: PFD ELIGIBILITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MCCARTY
03/20/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/21 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/09/21 (H) STA REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER JUD
04/09/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/21/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/21/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/21/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/26/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/26/21 (H) Moved CSHB 142(JUD) Out of Committee
04/26/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/28/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NEW TITLE 3DP 2NR 1AM
04/28/21 (H) DP: SNYDER, KREISS-TOMKINS, CLAMAN
04/28/21 (H) NR: EASTMAN, DRUMMOND
04/28/21 (H) AM: VANCE
04/29/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/29/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/04/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/04/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/04/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/19/21 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS 519
05/19/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/08/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBITED COMMERCIAL LEASE PROVISIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FOSTER
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, L&C
05/18/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/18/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/18/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reintroduced HB 142, as the prime sponsor.
COREY BIGELOW, Operations Manager
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on CSHB
142(JUD).
PAUL LABOLLE, Staff
Representative Neal Foster
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reintroduced HB 94, on behalf of
Representative Foster, prime sponsor.
TERRY BANNISTER
Legislative Legal Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
94.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:03:46 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Representatives Vance, Kaufman, Claman, Story, and Kreiss-
Tomkins were present at the call to order. Representatives
Eastman and Tarr arrived as the meeting was in progress.
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.
HB 94-PROHIBITED COMMERCIAL LEASE PROVISIONS
3:35:36 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 94, "An Act prohibiting the use of
certain restrictive provisions in leases of space for business
use in certain federally established zones; and adding an
unlawful act to the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act."
3:35:58 PM
PAUL LABOLLE, Staff, Representative Neal Foster, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Foster, prime sponsor,
explained that HB 94 would prohibit contract clauses that
prevent or limit either partys ability to participate in
business that compete with the other party. In essence, it
would add noncompete clauses to Alaskas Unfair Trade Practices
for lease agreements in HUBZones. He noted that HUBZones are
defined by the United State Small Business Administration (SBA)
under 15 U.S.C. 657a (HUBZone Act of 1997).
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Labolle whether he wanted to make
any additional refresher comments on the bill.
MR. LABOLLE addressed questions from the previous bill hearing
pertaining to HUBZones and where they are located. He noted
that at that time they were under review; however, that process
has been frozen until June 30, 2023, due to pending U.S. Census
data.
3:37:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the specific instance that
highlighted the need for this legislation.
MR. LABOLLE conveyed that the local Native corporation in
Mountain Village had entered into a lease agreement with Alaska
Commercial (AC) Company; however, due to the noncompete clause,
they couldnt open a smaller store that would compete with AC.
He explained that in rural areas, it's hard enough to get
competition to begin with because the population base is so low.
He said the added barrier to competition is what the bill hopes
to remove.
3:39:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether this legislation raises any
equal protection issues.
TERRY BANNISTER, Legislative Legal Services, confirmed that it
does raise equal protection issues as everyone would not be
treated equally.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that the population within the
HUBZone would be treated the same and the population outside the
HUBZone would be treated the same. He questioned why that
doesnt resolve the equal protection issue.
MS. BANNISTER remarked Because the people outside the zone are
treated differently than the people inside the zone.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN contended that the equal protection
problem would be a federal issue, as it pertains to the
HUBZones.
3:40:25 PM
MS. BANNISTER said she had not examined federal law on the
HUBZones yet.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether there are issues related to
delegation of authority to the federal government.
MS. BANNISTER answered yes. She said the bill depends on
establishing operation of the HUBZones, which is a federal
activity. She added that Alaska provisions would depend on the
federal governments actions as they relate to the HUBZones.
Therefore, the issue of delegating authority to the federal
government is raised.
3:41:51 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether ultimately, these are
constitutional problems.
MS. BANNISTER answered yes. She noted that the equal protection
issue also concerns local and special legislation, which is a
state constitutional issue. Further, she said, the improper
delegation would be the activity that the legislature is allowed
to perform their activities, which is ultimately a
constitutional issue.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Bannister to speak to the local
and special legislation consideration.
MS. BANNISTER stated that the bill would only apply to HUBZones
in certain areas of the state. She explained that a provision
in the constitution indicates that the legislature cannot pass a
law that only applies locally. Alternatively, a general law
could be made applicable at the will of the courts. She added
that if the courts would decide whether the bill bears a fair
and substantial relationship to legitimate state purposes.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Bannister to opine on whether the
legislation bears a fair and substantial relationship to
legitimate state purposes.
MS. BANNISTER said she has no opinion at this time.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether she has an opinion on the
broader constitutionality of the bill.
MS. BANNISTER answered no. She said she didnt have enough time
to consider the facts.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that she was just
flagging them as issues.
MS. BANNISTER confirmed that she was merely bringing attention
to issues that may be raised.
3:45:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the constitutional issues
that have been identified are state related or federal
constitutional issues.
MS. BANNISTER said the equal protection issue might raise a
problem with federal legal protection laws.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Ms. Bannister agrees that
the Alaska equal protection provisions are stronger than the
federal equal protection provisions.
MS. BANNISTER answered yes.
3:45:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked where the HUBZones are located in
Alaska.
MR. LABOLLE said HUBZones cover all of Alaska for different
reasons. Generally speaking, he said, Anchorage, Mat-Su, and
Fairbanks are the areas outside the HUBZones.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to confirm that it's the bill
sponsors interpretation that the bill would not conflict with
Alaska statutes.
MR. LABOLLE said the thought process behind the bill is that
equal protection provisions can be violated if there is a
compelling state interest. In this case, he indicated that the
compelling interest would be socioeconomic. He added that the
bill sponsor stuck with the federally defined HUBZones rather
than site specific ones in consideration of the special
legislation provision.
3:48:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 2 and asked
why not make the law apply to every area of the state, as
opposed to only in HUBZones.
MR. LABOLLE said the bill sponsor wouldn't be opposed to that if
it is the will of the committee. He explained that
Representative Foster is looking at the issue from a rural-
centric perspective and didnt want to involve Anchorage;
however, if Anchorage, Mat-Su, and Fairbanks wanted to be
included, it wouldnt pose any problems.
3:49:02 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Sitka and Homer would be
affected by the geographic scope of the proposed legislation.
MR. LABOLLE offered to follow up with that information.
3:49:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, in response to Representative Eastman,
surmised that if Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Mat-Su were included,
property owners would want to control whos on their property.
For example, if the bill were to pass and a quick-stop
convenience store was required to go up in a mall wherein Fred
Meyer was located, Fred Meyer would be concerned with that, he
opined. He shared his belief that its different in a small
community that only has one strip of stores owned by a single
landlord.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, in reference to the HUBZones Map located
on the SBA website asked, What is designated by the red, Mr.
Labolle?
MR. LABOLLE said the red indicates that the HUBZone is qualified
as a county.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that red signifies a
HUBZone.
MR. LABOLLE replied, Not just red. He provided a brief
explanation of how to use the interactive map.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS returned to his original question, asking
whether Sitka and Homer are qualified HUBZones.
MR. LABOLLE confirmed that they are both in HUBZones.
3:51:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN suggested that there could be unintended
consequences that may dampen businesses interest in an area.
He opined that monopolies arent good unless its the only way
to get goods and services into an area.
3:52:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that a geographically neutral
way to write the bill would be to base the limitations on the
size of the business involved or the number of locations it has.
MR. LABOLLE said he is unfamiliar with any statutes that use
that specific categorization. He said another route to consider
would be by population size.
3:53:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE urged further consideration of the impacts
to the affected boroughs or municipalities.
MR. LABOLLE acknowledged that if the committee decided to look
at alternate methods of application, that would be an important
consideration.
3:54:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he is always reticent of referencing
federal law in state statute because it is subject to change in
the future. He conveyed that he would be more amenable to
implementing the legislation without a reference to HUBZones due
to the level of uncertainty.
MR. LABOLLE confirmed that he would be following up on the issue
of delegating authority to the federal government. He further
acknowledged that the HUBZones are subject to change, as they
are reassessed every five years.
3:56:37 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 94 would be held over.
3:58:12 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:58
p.m.
| 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 |