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.]