Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS 519

02/27/2020 01:30 PM FINANCE

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 2:00 pm --
+= HB 205 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
+= HB 206 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 79 PEACE OFFICER/FIREFIGHTER RETIRE BENEFITS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= HB 30 WORKERS' COMP: DEATH; PERM PARTIAL IMPAIR TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= HB 102 RENTAL VEHICLE BY PRIVATE OWNER TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
HOUSE BILL NO. 79                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act relating  to  participation  of certain  peace                                                                    
     officers and  firefighters in  the defined  benefit and                                                                    
     defined  contribution plans  of  the Public  Employees'                                                                    
     Retirement  System of  Alaska; relating  to eligibility                                                                    
     of  peace   officers  and  firefighters   for  medical,                                                                    
     disability, and  death benefits; relating  to liability                                                                    
     of the  Public Employees' Retirement System  of Alaska;                                                                    
     and providing for an effective date."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:09:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair   Foster   MOVED   to  ADOPT   proposed   committee                                                                    
substitute  for  HB  79,   Work  Draft  31-LS0462\O  (Wayne,                                                                    
02/27/20) (copy on file).                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:10:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, BILL  SPONSOR, reviewed the bill.                                                                    
He  indicated  that HB  79  created  a new  tier  retirement                                                                    
system  containing  unique  features and  offered  financial                                                                    
sustainability.  He  characterized the  proposed  retirement                                                                    
plan  designed  for peace  officers  and  firefighters as  a                                                                    
hybrid between  a defined  benefit and  the current  Tier 4.                                                                    
He delineated that the bill  contained levers or adjustments                                                                    
designed  to  keep  the  plan   solvent  that  fell  into  3                                                                    
categories:  cost saving  features,  plan asset  enhancement                                                                    
adjustments, and plan benefit  reductions. He explained that                                                                    
the cost saving features  did not provide retirement medical                                                                    
insurance.  The  medical  benefit   was  the  equivalent  to                                                                    
current  Tier 4  benefits  offering  a Health  Reimbursement                                                                    
Arrangement (HRA)  acting as bridge  to Medicare.  The fixed                                                                    
age of  retirement was  55 years with  20 years  of service.                                                                    
Retirement prior to  the age of 55 with 20  years of service                                                                    
was prohibited.  The retirement benefits were  calculated at                                                                    
the  average  of the  top  earning  5 consecutive  years  of                                                                    
employment  rather than  the  highest 3.  The  plan did  not                                                                    
provide a  cost of living  adjustment. He reviewed  the plan                                                                    
asset   enhancement  adjustments.   He  reported   that  the                                                                    
employee  contribution  rate  could be  increased  based  on                                                                    
actuarial  calculations to  maintain solvency.  The employer                                                                    
contribution was  22 percent  with 12  percent going  to the                                                                    
plan and 10  percent for the current  unfunded liability. He                                                                    
elucidated   that  the   planned  benefit   reduction  could                                                                    
withhold the  post retirement enhancement adjustment  if the                                                                    
plans  funding  was less than  90 percent. He  restated that                                                                    
the three features kept the plan financially sustainable.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:14:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KEN TRUITT,  STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP,  reviewed the                                                                    
explanation of  changes for the committee  substitute. There                                                                    
were no substantive changes to  the bill. The representative                                                                    
had met with the Division  of Retirement and Benefits during                                                                    
the  interim to  review the  bill. The  changes were  merely                                                                    
slight  language  changes  making   the  bill  clearer.  The                                                                    
sponsor  provided a  PowerPoint presentation  titled  HB  79                                                                    
Explanation of  Changes version  U To  version O.   He began                                                                    
with slide 2 portraying page 3  of the bill, lines 6 through                                                                    
9, which  dealt with the Alaska  Retirement Management Board                                                                    
(ARMB) as follows:                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     (C) an appropriate monthly employer contribution under                                                                     
     AS 39.35.255(i); and (D) appropriate adjustments, if                                                                       
     any, under (b)(5) and (b)(6)                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Truitt  indicated that the change  provided instructions                                                                    
for  how the  ARMB  performed its  evaluation  of the  plan,                                                                    
specifically tracking the plans  features as proposed in the                                                                    
legislation. He moved to slide  3 that highlighted Section 2                                                                    
of the bill [edited]:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Sec. 2. AS 37.10.220(b) is amended to read:                                                                                
     (b) The board may                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     (5)  adjust  the amount  of  the  increase in  benefits                                                                    
     payable  to a  peace officer  or firefighter  who first                                                                    
     becomes  a  member after  June  30,  2006, as  provided                                                                    
     under AS 39.35.475;                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     (6)  adjust   employee  contribution  rates   under  AS                                                                    
     39.35.160(e).                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Truitt  pointed to AS  37.10.220(b) which  included more                                                                    
of the  ARMBs  duties and functions  which corresponded with                                                                    
the boards  new function outlined  on lines 6 through 9. The                                                                    
administration  was backing  away from  the term  "Tier." He                                                                    
referred  to  Section  2,  lines  23 and  24  and  read  the                                                                    
language,   to  a peace  officer  or  firefighter who  first                                                                    
becomes a  member after  June 30, 2006.   He noted  that the                                                                    
word  tier was  not included  in  the language  in the  bill                                                                    
rather, the language  previously cited was used  to refer to                                                                    
the new tier 5.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:18:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Truitt  continued to  the following  change on  page 10,                                                                    
Section 15 of the bill shown  on Slide 4. He delineated that                                                                    
the language  differed from  the prior  version only  in the                                                                    
manner the  provision proposed to  ensure that the  new tier                                                                    
contributed  to the  past service  liability  of the  Public                                                                    
Employees  Retirement  System   (PERS)  and  maintained  the                                                                    
employee  contribution  at  22 percent.  He  commented  that                                                                    
Section 15 amended AS 39.35.255(a):                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Sec. 15. AS 39.35.255(a) is amended to read:                                                                               
     (a)  Except as  required  by (i)  of  this section,  an                                                                    
     [EACH] employer  shall contribute  to the  system every                                                                    
     payroll period an amount calculated  by applying a rate                                                                    
     of 22 percent  of the greater of the total  of all base                                                                    
     salaries                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Truitt  moved  to  Section  18  which  proposed  a  new                                                                    
subsection to AS 39.35.255:                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Sec.  18.  AS  39.35.255   is  amended  by  adding  new                                                                    
     subsections to read:                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     (i)  An  employer  that  employs  a  peace  officer  or                                                                  
        firefighter who first participates in the plan after                                                                    
        June 30, 2006, shall contribute to the system every                                                                     
        payroll period an amount equal to the sum of                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
          (1)  a per  capita  amount that  is calculated  by                                                                    
          applying a  rate, determined by the  board, of not                                                                    
          less  than   12  percent  of  the   total  monthly                                                                    
          compensation  the  employer   pays  to  all  peace                                                                    
          officers   and  firefighters   who  first   became                                                                    
          members of the plan after June 30, 2006; and                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
          (2) an  amount, determined  by the board,  that is                                                                    
          equal  to the  difference between  the per  capita                                                                    
          amount  determined under  (1)  of this  subsection                                                                    
          and  the  amount  calculated  under  (a)  of  this                                                                    
          section.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Truitt  reported that  the new  subsection (i)  sets the                                                                    
employer contribution for  the employee's retirement benefit                                                                    
at 12  percent under paragraph (1).  Paragraph (2) specified                                                                    
that the remainder was applied  to the unfunded liability of                                                                    
the  existing PERS  plan. The  12 percent  contribution rate                                                                    
was greater than the contribution  rate found in Tier 4. The                                                                    
language was  clearer in  the current  version of  the bill,                                                                    
but the concept  remained the same as  the original version.                                                                    
He discussed the final change in  Section 25, page 13 of the                                                                    
bill depicted on Slide 5:                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Sec.  25.  AS  39.35.475   is  amended  by  adding  new                                                                    
     subsections to read:                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     (g)  A   person  who  receives   a  benefit   under  AS                                                                    
     39.35.370(l)  is eligible  to  receive  an increase  in                                                                    
     benefits under this section.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     (h) If  the board  determines that  the portion  of the                                                                    
     unfunded liability of the plan  that is attributable to                                                                    
     all peace  officers and  firefighters who  first become                                                                    
     members of  the plan  after June  30, 2006,  is greater                                                                    
     than 10  percent, the  board may  reduce the  amount of                                                                    
     the increase under (b) of  this section that is payable                                                                    
     to a peace  officer or firefighter who  first becomes a                                                                    
     member  after June  30, 2006.  At any  time, the  board                                                                    
     may terminate a reduction made under this subsection.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Truitt reported that the  administration had flagged the                                                                    
section  that  pertained   to  the  post-retirement  pension                                                                    
adjustment (PRPA)  benefit reduction. He explained  that the                                                                    
section had  intended to allow  the ARM board to  reduce the                                                                    
plans   benefit   when  necessary  to  keep   the  new  tier                                                                    
financially viable.  However, the  administration discovered                                                                    
that  the prior  version of  the bill  referred to  the PERS                                                                    
unfunded liability  as a  whole and the  HB 79  plan benefit                                                                    
would  always be  reduced until  the unfunded  liability was                                                                    
paid. The  change included the following  specific language,                                                                    
 the plan  that is  attributable to  all peace  officers and                                                                    
firefighters who first become as a corrective measure.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative Carpenter  spoke to  his objection.  He asked                                                                    
for  clarification regarding  the  word  attributable.   Mr.                                                                    
Truitt  responded that  if the  language in  the CS  was not                                                                    
included  the  post-retirement  pension  adjustment  benefit                                                                    
would always be reduced and  the members would never receive                                                                    
it.  He clarified  that  the new  language  allowed for  the                                                                    
benefit if  the plan was found  to be solvent and  funded at                                                                    
90 percent or more.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:25:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Carpenter  surmised that there was  a certain                                                                    
level  of risk  with the  proposed plan  and if  it was  not                                                                    
solvent the  benefit was not  distributed. He  asked whether                                                                    
he was correct.  Mr. Truitt answered in  the affirmative. He                                                                    
added that  all the  features in the  bill were  included to                                                                    
plan   for  uncertainty   in   the  future.   Representative                                                                    
Carpenter  thought  it was  worrying  that  a peace  officer                                                                    
would participate  in a retirement  plan with a risk  of not                                                                    
receiving benefits in the future.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative    Kopp    remarked    that    Representative                                                                    
Carpenters  statement was  oversimplified. He explained that                                                                    
there was  a lack of  certainty in a future  benefit because                                                                    
the  plans  levers  kept it  reactive to  market conditions.                                                                    
He  recounted  that the  committee  heard  testimony in  the                                                                    
prior session from an actuary  in the state of Washington in                                                                    
charge  of a  similar plan.  He reported  that the  plan was                                                                    
consistently  funded  at  over  100 percent  as  well  as  a                                                                    
similar plan  in Colorado. The  model was proven  to perform                                                                    
reliably in other states. The  proposed plan will be tracked                                                                    
separately  from other  PERS participants  to determine  the                                                                    
funding level of the plan. The  new language in the bill was                                                                    
necessary  to  target  the plans   members  apart  from  the                                                                    
larger  PERS  group  to  allow   calculation  of  the  post-                                                                    
retirement  pension adjustment.  He  reminded the  committee                                                                    
that the adjustment was eliminated  when the plan was funded                                                                    
under 90 percent and that  maintaining a funding level of 90                                                                    
percent  was   the  gold  standard  for   retirement  plans.                                                                    
Representative  Carpenter  understood  but was  uncertain  a                                                                    
peace  officer  or firefighter  would  find  comfort in  the                                                                    
plan.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:29:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Josephson  inquired  whether only  the  PRPA                                                                    
could be suspended and not  the bulk of the pension benefit.                                                                    
Representative   Kopp   responded    in   the   affirmative.                                                                    
Representative   Josephson   surmised   that  the   tier   5                                                                    
participant  would  have  90  percent  confidence  in  their                                                                    
retirement benefit  amount. Representative Kopp  answered in                                                                    
the affirmative. He voiced that  there was a  high degree of                                                                    
confidence in  the overall  plan  but  the lever  to suspend                                                                    
the PRPA benefit  was available to the  actuary. He reminded                                                                    
the  committee  of  Deven  Mitchells   [Executive  Director,                                                                    
Alaska   Municipal  Bond   Bank  Authority,   Department  of                                                                    
Revenue]  prior testimony  regarding Tier  4 models  showing                                                                    
that within  10 years  Tier 4  was only  performing slightly                                                                    
better  than social  security alone.  He offered  that while                                                                    
the  HB 79  plan was  very conservative,  there was  greater                                                                    
surety  for peace  officers and  firefighters  than Tier  4.                                                                    
Representative  Josephson  wondered   about  the  difference                                                                    
between a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) and a PRPA.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:31:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TOM  WESCOTT, PRESIDENT,  ALASKA PROFESSIONAL  FIREFIGHTERS,                                                                    
responded that a  COLA was awarded under  the legacy Defined                                                                    
Benefit plans  (DB). He furthered  that in other  states the                                                                    
COLA was an inflation proofing  adjustment, but in Alaska it                                                                    
was  awarded  for  remaining  in the  state.  The  COLA  was                                                                    
eliminated in  HB 79. Representative Josephson  deduced that                                                                    
the  lack  of a  COLA  disincentivized  elderly retirees  to                                                                    
remain  in  the state.  Mr.  Wescott  agreed that  the  COLA                                                                    
benefit  had  been  stripped  out.  He  suggested  that  the                                                                    
 expensive   nature   of   living   in   Alaska  should   be                                                                    
compensated for in employees pay throughout their career.                                                                       
2:33:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  LeBon asked  about  the 5  year average  the                                                                    
retirement benefit  was built upon. He  wondered whether the                                                                    
5 year average included  annual overtime pay. Representative                                                                    
Kopp replied in the affirmative.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Carpenter WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
There being  NO OBJECTION, it  was so ordered.  The proposed                                                                    
CS was ADOPTED.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Johnston asked  for a  brief  introduction to  the                                                                    
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Kopp indicated that  the bill was in response                                                                    
to  recruitment  and  retention   issues  related  to  peace                                                                    
officers and fire fighters. He  detailed that only the older                                                                    
experienced  employees   in  DB  plans  and   younger,  less                                                                    
experienced new recruits were retained.  The middle class of                                                                    
managers, sergeants, lieutenants,  and battalion chiefs were                                                                    
leaving the  state for defined benefits.  Many positions had                                                                    
been left open  because of a lack of interest  due to a lack                                                                    
of surety in benefits. The  scenario resulted in proposing a                                                                    
very conservative hybrid plan. The  idea behind HB 79 was to                                                                    
retain employees  and address unmet needs.  The medical cost                                                                    
savings feature was  a  very significant  part  of the plan.                                                                    
The feature would  allow a person to purchase  the best plan                                                                    
possible  after retirement  until Medicare.  He acknowledged                                                                    
that  the fixed  age of  retirement at  55 was  an unpopular                                                                    
part of  the plan. He  shared that he retired  from policing                                                                    
at the  age of  44 and  felt it was  a more  appropriate age                                                                    
considering the  physical demands  of the job.  However, the                                                                    
older retirement  age was a  necessary feature of  the plan.                                                                    
He listed the  remaining cost saving features:  high 5 year-                                                                    
average  retirement  income  calculation, lack  of  a  COLA,                                                                    
employee  contribution rate  increase option,  and suspended                                                                    
PRPA.  He noted  the public  safety communitys   support for                                                                    
the  bill  despite  its limitations  when  compared  to  the                                                                    
current plan.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:37:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Sullivan-Leonard  asked whether  an actuarial                                                                    
fiscal  analysis  would  be  provided.  Representative  Kopp                                                                    
reported that  he had been  working with  the administration                                                                    
to  obtain  the  actuarial  analysis. He  thought  that  the                                                                    
information would be forthcoming shortly.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked  if it was common  to begin receiving                                                                    
retirement   benefits   at   age   55   in   other   states.                                                                    
Representative  Kopp  indicated  that  in  the  states  with                                                                    
similar  plans  age  55  was  a  common  retirement  age.  A                                                                    
 couple   states lowered  the age  to 51.  He added  that in                                                                    
most states with  DB plans retirement was based on  20 to 25                                                                    
years  of  service.  However,   they  were  considered  high                                                                    
liability  plans. The  delayed  retirement  helped make  the                                                                    
hybrid plan affordable.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Ortiz  asked  whether adopting  the  plan  would                                                                    
significantly  help accomplish  the  goal  of retention.  He                                                                    
believed that if the plan   did the job  of retaining enough                                                                    
employees,  other savings  would be  realized in  areas like                                                                    
recruitment.  Mr. Wescott  replied  in  the affirmative.  He                                                                    
accentuated  that  the  plan would  absolutely  assist  with                                                                    
recruitment  and  retention.  He   noted  that  one  of  the                                                                    
characteristics  of a  DB  plan was  that  the employee  was                                                                    
required to  invest time, which  was a deterrent  to leaving                                                                    
the position as the years  built up. He performed some rough                                                                    
estimates  and determined  that the  state saved  $4 million                                                                    
per  year by  retaining  one percent  of  the public  safety                                                                    
workforce at  $120 thousand per employee  in training costs.                                                                    
He ascertained  that completely  solving the problem was not                                                                    
required to pay for the new plan.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wool  asked  Representative Kopp  to  review                                                                    
what  was available  to help  the retiree  fill the  medical                                                                    
gap;  the period  between  55 and  the  eligibility age  for                                                                    
Medicare.  He asked  whether there  was an  associated plan.                                                                    
Representative  Kopp replied  that the  health reimbursement                                                                    
arrangement  was   a  cash  pool   that  built   up  through                                                                    
contributions and  was available  for any market  based plan                                                                    
the employee  chose as a  bridge to Medicare.  Some agencies                                                                    
had   affiliations  with   certain  plan   participants.  He                                                                    
deferred further answer to Mr. Westcott.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Westcott  agreed  that  the  gap  was  significant  and                                                                    
 tough   to  deal  with.  He  commented  that  it  could  be                                                                    
addressed  in the  future. He  expounded  that when  medical                                                                    
benefits  were  attached  to  a pension  plan  it  added  an                                                                    
 unknown  cost  that historically grew quickly.  He reported                                                                    
that  he had  analyzed  other pension  plans and  discovered                                                                    
that  the   medical  benefits  were   typically  problematic                                                                    
because they grew rapidly adding significant costs.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:43:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wool wondered what  happened to an employee's                                                                    
contributions  if  they had  to  leave  the state  prior  to                                                                    
retirement.  Representative  Kopp   responded  that  once  a                                                                    
participant  met the  vestment period,  an individual  could                                                                    
withdraw the benefit once they reached retirement age.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative LeBon  had heard that one  problematic reason                                                                    
for the  liability in the Teachers'  Retirement System (TRS)                                                                    
and PERS was due to  employees accepting positions in remote                                                                    
locations or working extra overtime  during their last three                                                                    
years  to  build  up the  retirement  benefit.  He  wondered                                                                    
whether the  practices affected the liability  the state was                                                                    
currently paying. Representative Kopp  reported that most of                                                                    
the    states    public    safety   employees    worked   in                                                                    
municipalities  and  were  not   entitled  to  a  geographic                                                                    
differential.  He stated  that few  state troopers  chose to                                                                    
work remotely for  a period of time, preferring  life on the                                                                    
road system. He  did not believe that  the practice affected                                                                    
the current  liability issues. He elucidated  that the state                                                                    
received poor  actuarial advice,  which caused the  state to                                                                    
underpay over  many years. In fact,  many municipalities did                                                                    
not  pay   an  employer  contribution  based   on  erroneous                                                                    
actuarial advice.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:46:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  LeBon assumed  that a  trooper working  in a                                                                    
remote area  receiving differential  pay would  likely leave                                                                    
the  area upon  retirement. He  wondered why  the retirement                                                                    
benefit  was built  upon the  location  differential and  if                                                                    
eliminating  overtime and  location differential  would help                                                                    
protect  the plan.  Mr. Westcott  replied that  the practice                                                                    
Representative LeBon  described was  known as   spiking.  He                                                                    
noted  that the  highest five  years was  identified in  the                                                                    
Washington  state plan  as a  best  practice that  prevented                                                                    
spiking  and  was  more  representative   of  a  career.  He                                                                    
indicated that  a state  trooper had to  work 50  percent of                                                                    
their career  in the remote  location to receive  a location                                                                    
differential.  Representative LeBon  was  glad  to hear  the                                                                    
issue was addressed  in the bill. He  reported knowing state                                                                    
workers  that moved  to a  remote  location to  get their  3                                                                    
highest years.                                                                                                                  
2:49:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Carpenter voiced  that  just  the fact  that                                                                    
spiking  was  an established  term  meant  the issue  needed                                                                    
combating.  He suggested  inserting language  that prevented                                                                    
spiking rather than  using the 5 year average.  He felt that                                                                    
a   prohibition   in   statue   was   a   better   solution.                                                                    
Representative Kopp replied that  when a person earned more,                                                                    
they  also contributed  more  to the  plan.  He spoke  about                                                                    
peace   officers    aversion    to   forced   overtime   and                                                                    
experiencing burnt-out.  He indicated that  municipal police                                                                    
departments  forced  overtime  due to  staff  shortages  and                                                                    
burn-out  was  affecting   officers.  He  acknowledged  that                                                                    
working extra  overtime at  the end of  a career  to enhance                                                                    
retirement happened,  but it was not  currently the problem.                                                                    
He identified the lack of  recruitment, forced overtime, and                                                                    
burnout as  the problem.  He assured  that by  spreading out                                                                    
the retirement average  over 5 years a  person would burnout                                                                    
making  spiking  almost impossible.  He  was  unsure how  to                                                                    
nuance the bill to prohibit spiking.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Johnston indicated  the  committee  would set  the                                                                    
bill aside.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HB  79  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 30 Explanation of Changes ver. R 2.27.2020.pdf HFIN 2/27/2020 1:30:00 PM
HB 30
HB 30 Maximum Benefit for PPI by State - Workers' Compensation Research Institute 1.29.20.pdf HFIN 2/27/2020 1:30:00 PM
HB 30
HB 30 ProPublica Graphic - Alaska v National Average 1.29.20.pdf HFIN 2/27/2020 1:30:00 PM
HB 30
HB 30 ProPublica Graphic - How Much is a Limb Worth 1.29.20.pdf HFIN 2/27/2020 1:30:00 PM
HB 30
HB 30 ver. R 1.31.20.pdf HFIN 2/27/2020 1:30:00 PM
HB 30
HB 102 TuroLetterFebruary 022720.pdf HFIN 2/27/2020 1:30:00 PM
HB 102
HB 79 Explantion of Changes ver O 2.27.2020.pdf HFIN 2/27/2020 1:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB 79 Sectional Analysis ver O 2.27.2020.pdf HFIN 2/27/2020 1:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB 79 Presentation Explanation of Changes Ver U to Ver O 2.27.2020.pdf HFIN 2/27/2020 1:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB 79 ver. O 2.27.2020.pdf HFIN 2/27/2020 1:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB 30 Letter of Support NEA.pdf HFIN 2/27/2020 1:30:00 PM
HB 30
HB 102 State by State Comp 021020.pdf HFIN 2/27/2020 1:30:00 PM
HB 102