Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/05/2013 08:00 AM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB71 | |
HB84 | |
HB76 | |
HB74 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HB 84 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 76-UNEMPLOYMENT; ELEC. FILING OF LABOR INFO 8:55:24 AM CHAIR OLSON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 76 "An Act relating to electronic filing of certain information with the Department of Labor and Workforce Development; relating to surcharges, rate increase reduction, prohibition on the relief of certain charges, the unemployment trust fund account, and the offset of certain unemployment compensation debt under the Alaska Employment Security Act; relating to the definition of 'covered unemployment compensation debt' in the Alaska Employment Security Act; and providing for an effective date." 8:55:37 AM DIANNE BLUMER, Commissioner, Department of Labor & Workforce Development, introduced herself and other departmental staff present. 8:57:00 AM BRYNN KEITH, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), stated that HB 76 does four things. First, it would allow for the electronic filing of reports and documents. Second, it will improve the department's ability to recoup fraudulent unemployment insurance payments. Third, it would adopt minor changes to bring the department into conformance with federal law that governs the unemployment insurance program. Fourth, it would change how unemployment tax rates are set in order to keep more money in the hands of Alaska's employers and employees, and to keep money circulating through the economy while protecting the integrity of the trust fund. 8:57:49 AM PAUL DICK, Director, Employment Security Division, Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), offered to provide a section by section analysis of the bill, with brief commentary on each section. He explained that Section 1 would add a new section authorizing the commissioner the use of electronic filing methods in place of paper, which is a measure to modernize the division and is an efficiency measure for the state. Section 2 would authorize the legislature to appropriate funds to the Unemployment Trust Fund, in conjunction with Sections 5 and 6, which will be covered later. 8:59:18 AM MR. DICK stated that Section 3 would conform to federal law, which essentially will prohibit relief of charges to reimbursable employers, which are governmental agencies for which the department processes their benefits and charge them back for the benefits the department paid out. He highlighted that this section would apply to employers with a repeated pattern of failure for untimely response to the division's request. He contrasted the number of governmental employers, 200 governmental employers, with the 18,000 private employers and noted that the division has not had any specific issues with governmental employers responding to requests. Section 4 would repeal and reenact AS 23.20.290 (f), replacing a table method for determining unemployment insolvency adjustments with a more precise calculation method. As part of the tax rate, the Unemployment Insurance (UI) trust fund solvency adjustment examines the fund's solvency in comparison to wages. This basically would collapse the table into verbiage and would take the calculation from tenths of a percent to hundredths of a percent. Section 5 would authorize the commissioner to eliminate or reduce increases in unemployment insurance (UI) tax rates. This would only apply to given years within the tax rate, conditional upon another measure of solvency - the average high cost multiple - or the measure of solvency calculated by the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration. The rate would be calculated at 0.8 or greater. This section is intended to provide UI tax relief to employers during times when the economy is in recession, deferring the taxes to subsequent years when the economy is growing and healthy and pertains only to years in which the tax rate is being increased. 9:02:04 AM MR. DICK informed the committee that Section 6 would bring the state into conformity with federal law [Public Law 112-40] by removing the department's authority to waive collection of a penalty established due to misrepresentation. Section 6 also would require a minimum of 30 percent of the UI penalties collected due to misrepresentation to be deposited to the UI Trust Fund. He reported that currently, those funds from penalties are deposited in the general fund. This federal law conformity would dictate that 30 percent of the penalties be deposited to the UI Trust Fund, which benefits the fund's balance and can help mitigate tax increases for employers. Section 7 would authorize the department to participate in an offset program called the Treasury Offset Program. Currently, 21 states participate in the program. This would become another tool to aid the department in collections, he said. The department already offsets liabilities through the PFD garnishment program. This would expand this effort and be very beneficial to the state since it would give the department the authority to offset federal income tax refunds from out-of-state people who are out of jurisdiction and from whom it is difficult to collect. MR. DICK moved on to Section 8, which would amend AS 23.20.520 by adding a new paragraph to define "covered employment compensation debt" in accordance with the federal statutes definition. Section 9 would amend the state's uncodified law specifying that AS 23.20.279, Section 3 of this bill, applies to overpaid benefits established after October 21, 2013 - the date which ties into federal law that requires enactment of the conformity provision by that date. Sections 10-12 pertain to effective dates and the authority to adopt regulations. 9:04:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to a chart in members' packets entitled, "Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund Balances and Benefits Paid/Taxes Collected 2005-2012." He compared the actual fund balance on September 30, 2012, to what would have occurred if HB 76 had been in effect. Although the differences from 2005 to 2010 are marginal as there is virtually no difference in the net balance for the first five years. However, then a marked change occurs. He asked for an explanation of the change. For example, in 2009 the fund balance for the department was $319 million, but under HB 76 would be $313 million, but last year the figures are $264 million versus under this bill $189 million. He asked the reason for the significant disparity that begins in 2010. MS. KEITH replied that there are a lot of moving parts in these calculations. Not only would the division suspend all of the tax increases during these periods, but the division has a solvency adjustment, which allows the department to increase or decrease to a certain degree. Additionally, the division has penalties that flow into the fund. She reiterated that lots of moving pieces affect the calculations. She characterized the figures at the end of 2012 as a cumulative result. She suggested it might be helpful to go back some additional years to provide an extended period to better view the overall effect. MR. DICK added that in 2009 the U.S. went into a recession and the division sees the effects of cost increases during these years, which resulted in increases in rates in the last three years. The chart reflects the cumulative rate increase for each of those years, which results in a further decline in the balance. He added that with HB 76, which is essentially a tax deferral program, the trust fund will work its way up to the targeted rate of 3 percent over the years when the economy is growing and rates would have been going down. He described this as a concept for tax deferral and in the subsequent years, assuming the state is beyond the recession and the economy is growing. One of the moving parts in the overall formula of the tax rate is benefit costs compared to wages. Thus, as more people are employed, the employment rate decreases and the costs decrease and normally the division would experience a tax decrease. However, because of the trust fund factor working its way up to a targeted rate, the tax increase is essentially deferred into subsequent years. 9:09:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired as to the maximum unemployment benefits in Alaska. MR. DICK answered that the maximum unemployment benefit is $370 per week and the minimum amount is $56 per week. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked how that compares with other states' benefits. MR. DICK responded that Alaska is approximately in the middle of the pack. He offered that some states pay unemployment benefits of $550 so Alaska maybe a bit above the middle. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund has ever been insolvent. MR. DICK replied no, adding that the UI trust fund has never been insolvent since statehood. 9:10:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the current system allows for peaks and valleys that is boom and bust cycles. MR. DICK answered yes; the current system allows a solvency adjustment. As the economy weakens the UI Trust Fund balance will typically decrease, which then reverses with economic upswing. He acknowledged the fluctuation and referred to the table in members' packets entitled, "Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development Employment and Security Division, Historical Average Combined UI Contribution Rates, Rate Class 10," which ranges from 4.84 to low of 1.65. The rates fluctuate between years and if one were to overlay a chart of the economy, the relationship would be visible, he said. 9:12:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON related his understanding that the current system allows for some departmental flexibility, to increase or decrease, in terms of the employee and employer rates. MR. DICK clarified that the rates are established through a formula in statute, and thus the department does not have any discretionary at this time. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked what the federal government does in the event the state under collects and a greater demand for unemployment exists. MR. DICK answered that the federal government has guidelines for reviewing trust funds. First of all, penalties are not imposed for becoming insolvent; however, the federal unemployment program requires states to continue to pay UI benefits. As many as 32 states have had to borrow to pay these benefits and have had to subsequently repay the federal government with interest. 9:13:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked how the other states became insolvent and how does Alaska avoid it. MR. DICK responded that although he is not familiar with programs or systems in other states, he believes the issue has been driven by the economy and recessions in those states. For example, California currently owes $10 billion and Michigan also has substantial debt. He reiterated that he has not studied the interplay between the system and their economies. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON related his understanding that Alaska is one of 18 states that have never been in an insolvency situation. MR. DICK answered that is correct. 9:14:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD remarked that the electronic filing is a great idea. This bill helps Alaska be federally compliant and businesses be sustainable. She commented that Alaska is not doing so well compared to other states with respect to competition. She said there isn't any cost to the department and it seems as though it will streamline the process and make things more efficient. She thanked Mr. Dick for bringing this forward. 9:15:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT referred to Section 5 of the bill, which will give the commissioner a lot leeway in suspending all or part of the unemployment rates. He asked whether there is any concern with the ability to adjust .3 percent yearly regardless of the unemployment rates. MR. DICK answered that currently the structure is such that the UI Trust Fund solvency adjustment can only increase or decrease by .3 percent per year. Section 4 would remove the .3 percent decrease aspect. Therefore, the department would still have the ability to implement a .3 percent increase, which is intended to provide protection to employers, to stair step, and in years of increase to increase the rate. He informed the committee that the department believes the .3 percent limitation on decreases should be eliminated when the economy recovers to allow employers more tax relief, get more money in the economy, and help the economy grow even more. 9:17:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked who pays the federal government unemployment benefits. MR. DICK answered that the federal benefits the division pays out is 100 percent reimbursed by the federal government. 9:18:14 AM DON ETHRIDGE, Lobbyist, Alaska State AFL-CIO, said that the Alaska AFL-CIO supports the fraud protection measures in HB 76, but does not support Section 5. He expressed concern that the changes in Section 4 add politics into a formula-driven process that has worked for many years. After all, Alaska is solvent and doesn't have to go to the federal government for money. Currently, state and federal budget cuts are being discussed, including cuts to the capital budget. Construction trades depend on unemployment benefits during the winter to avoid going to the Lower 48 for work. He concluded that politics is the wrong way to go to address [the UI tax rates]. He asked the committee to consider adjusting the calculations if the formula needs adjusting and encouraged the committee not to introduce politics into the equation. 9:20:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT requested clarification as to how Mr. Etheridge believes politics play a role in this rather than viewing the amount of unemployment collected as an economic decision. She said she did not view Section 5 as politicizing the movement of the unemployment rate. MR. ETHRIDGE answered that if the commissioner is making the decision, the pressure would be on the commissioner to reduce the unemployment rate, whether or not it is viable to do so. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT disagreed that there would ever be a scenario in which the DLWD commissioner would place the UI Trust Fund in jeopardy. In fact, she suggested the effect would be the exact opposite in that the reduction [of UI taxes under the bill] would come at a time when the economy needs adjustment. She maintained it isn't always about politics, but rather what is best for the economy and the employee. She maintained that neither the commissioner nor the governor would put Alaska's unemployment benefits at risk. MR. ETHERIDGE said he hoped that would be true, but he maintained his concerns. 9:23:06 AM PAUL GROSSI, Lobbyist, Alaska State Pipe Trades UA Local 375; Ironworker Management Progressive Action Cooperative, said he shares the same concerns [as Mr. Etheridge]. He characterized the bill as basically a housekeeping bill, the vast majority of which he supports, to help the department perform its job better and better comply with federal requirements. However, he expressed concern over Section 5 of HB 76. He explained that the formula was put into place over 30 years ago and was designed by David Teal, the [legislative fiscal analyst in the] Legislative Finance Division. Thus far it's worked perfectly without any insolvency - for over 30 years. In the good times, he predicted the proposed changes will work well and assist employers. However, in bad times it could lead to underfunding and should the economy take a drastic downturn, it could lead to insolvency or add to the possibility of insolvency. MR. GROSSI explained that the formula has a three-year look back period with various parts to the formula designed to lessen the increase and decrease in taxes to employers and employees. Thus the formula is designed to level out the peaks and valleys. He expressed concern that [HB 76, Section 5] could add additional risk. He related that his clients have employers and his [clients] want the employers to get the benefits; however, he was unsure how much benefit [Section 5] would mean. He estimated that it would probably range from $30 to $40 annually per employee, which isn't significant but could help. However, if the formula is such that it is currently overfunding the [UI Trust Fund], he suggested changing the formula. In fact, David Teal is still available and no one knows the formula better than him, he said. He cautioned against placing this decision in the hands of one person. Granted, he said he trusts the new DLWD commissioner and does not believe anyone would intentionally harm the fund, he pointed out that predicting what will happen to the economy next year is difficult. 9:27:21 AM MR. GROSSI maintained that if the formula is overfunding [the UI Trust Fund], then the legislature should review the formula since it is the legislature's job to do so and not the job of the DLWD commissioner. The legislature determines funding so if a problem with the formula for the UI Trust Fund exists, the legislature should address it and not place the fund at risk. MR. GROSSI brought up another point that would help employers. He said that if the [UI Trust] fund becomes insolvent, the federal government will need to step in to ensure that unemployment benefits are paid; however, the state would be required to reimburse the federal government the funds, including interest. In fact, it really would be the employers who would be charged since the UI tax being withheld is the employers' money. Thus, while the legislature is trying to help employers with this bill, it ultimately may put employers at risk. He urged members to thoroughly review this bill. CHAIR OLSON said the commissioner acted appropriately by bringing this issue to the committee in the form of a bill. 9:29:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT related her understanding that Mr. Grossi trusts David Teal, and asked if Mr. Grossi would rather Mr. Teal make the adjustments. Representative Millett opined that the formula doesn't need to be rewritten; HB 76 merely requests the latitude to make a small adjustment to the formula. She questioned whether the concern is with the DLWD commissioner making the adjustment. She suggested that [Section 5] does not make a significant request nor would anyone ever want to ever make the fund insolvent. While the increment and the benefit to employers might be minimal under the bill, it seems like a wise thing to consider when the economy is bad. She asked again whether Mr. Grossi's objection was specifically to the DLWD commissioner making the decision and if he believes the legislative finance analyst is the more appropriate person to make the determination. MR. GROSSI clarified that he trusts the current DLWD's commissioner, but he emphasized again that the formula has worked. Therefore, if the formula needs to be adjusted, it should be reviewed. "It's not David Teal," although he obviously designed is a good system that has never experienced insolvency. Although California and other states have had problems with insolvency, Alaska has not, even though the economy suffered severe downturns such as the one during the mid-80s. In fact, the system survived the mid-80s. He highlighted that the good thing about this formula is that it considers the [UI Trust] fund, the number of employees, plus a whole gambit of factors, and determines what is needed. He suggested if the formula needs minor changes to keep it working effectively, it could occur while still giving employers a break. 9:32:34 AM CHAIR OLSON reiterated it is within the commissioner's purview to make this decision, but he did not believe this function is in Mr. Teal's current job description. 9:32:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, referring to page 3, lines 23-26, questioned whether the issue or concern with Section 5 is with the "in whole" language and if it should be limited to "in part". MR. GROSSI responded that he doesn't know. He suggested that the review did not need to be limited to Mr. Teal, but perhaps the actuaries and Mr. Teal could review the formula and determine whether it needs to be changed to give employers relief. However, it should be done in such a way that doesn't put the fund at risk. After all, chances are - especially during the good times - the changes would be fine, but if overfunding is the issue, it seems as though that adjustment could be made through the formula, which could then suffice for another 30 years. He agreed he does not have the solution to this issue, but reiterated that it seems the actuaries and Mr. Teal could review the formula. 9:35:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, after considering the comments and reading Section 5, suggested the committee should consider deleting the "in whole" language from Section 5, but keep the "in part" language with side boards. CHAIR OLSON indicated he does not intend to move HB 76 today. 9:36:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to a letter in members' packets from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) dated January 18, 2013, from which she read the following statement: "House Bill 76 revises the contribution requirements to keep the trust fund solvent and allows the commissioner the authority to eliminate or reduce increases in unemployment insurance tax rates when the fund is fully funded, based on standards to ensure the actuarial soundness of the unemployment trust fund." She then asked if Mr. Grossi agrees or disagrees with the statement. MR. GROSSI answered he agrees with the intent. He maintained his concern about the uncertainty of whether the fund will remain solvent. He recalled Mr. Etheridge indicated the future is unknown. In fact, none of us knows the future. He expressed concern that if the [UI trust fund] is reduced and the state experiences a downturn in the economy, it would harm employers. He suggested Representative Herron's concept would at least make it less of a possibility and is moving in right direction. 9:38:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT pointed out that the voice of small businesses, the NFIB, is saying they support the bill, while the unions express fear that the commissioner - who is very aware of the state of the fully funded UI [trust fund] not being able to make a small adjustment. "It baffles me," she said. Representative Millett remarked that it seems like a contradiction between the union and small business owners, who would be most affected. MR. GROSSI noted that he also represents small employers and also wants to help small employers, but wants to avoid unintentionally harm to them or the fund. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT suggested perhaps he was worried about negligence. MR. GROSSI answered that he would characterize his concern not as pertaining to negligence but due to a lack of knowledge. 9:40:00 AM CHAIR OLSON offered his belief that the commissioner's goal and the one he stated are similar. He suggested the commissioner has the best interests of the state at hand. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said this is the first time she has heard insinuations and mistrust and she found the undercurrent as inappropriate. She also said she knows the commissioner, who has a reputation of working well with labor. She said she was unsure if the concern is that under the current commissioner that insolvency would result. She highlighted that the NFIB letter speaks loud and clear in its support of HB 76, and added that the state needs to support its small businesses. 9:41:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, with due respect to his colleagues, said he was puzzled by Representative Reinbold and Representative Millett's comments, who indicated they seem to find differences between management and labor as shocking. He said, "I don't find it shocking. It's the history of humanity. It goes back to the guilds in the 1700s. Of course there is a difference. I woke up knowing that. I take his - Mr. Grossi's - comments as just being concerned about some employers who he represents ...." CHAIR OLSON interjected that this might be best under committee comments. He remarked he's appalled that someone might think a political decision is occasionally made in this building. 9:42:16 AM COMMISSIONER BLUMER said that although HB 76 lists the commissioner of the Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD) as the decision-maker, she cannot imagine the decision would be made in a vacuum. She stressed the importance of considering the best interests of the state and highlighted that the current governor would not want to put the state in the position of borrowing from the federal government. She offered her belief that sideboards on the bill exist that defines when the decision can be made, in conjunction with the actuary. Thus the decision would not be made in a vacuum and would not be harmful to businesses in the state. She concluded that all who know this administration know that wouldn't be the case. 9:43:32 AM DOUG HOLMES, President, National Foundation for Unemployment Compensation and Workers' Compensation, stated he also serves as the president of UWC, an organization that monitors unemployment insurance policy and law at the federal and state level. He provided his background, including his service as a UI administrator, legal counsel, and Secretary of the Council for the Ohio system. He retired from state service and became president of the national organization. He related he watches these issues closely and often consults with states on solvency efforts related to unemployment insurance. He referred to Sections 4 and 5 of HB 76 and offered to provide his perspective on how Alaska fits relative to other states and the federal guidelines. He indicated that Alaska is in a good place in terms of solvency of the UI trust fund. 9:45:36 AM MR. HOLMES, with regard to Section 5, explained that the .08 high cost multiple equates to about $230 million so even if Alaska dropped to .08 it would still have $230 million in the UI trust fund, which would be a fairly good balance given the state's benefit payout history. He offered his belief the risk of insolvency is minimal or non-existent and suggested that it seemed reasonable to place the review with the commissioner and actuary, which would provide some flexibility and enable the state to respond. MR. HOLMES said one issue that arises in each state is determining the appropriate trust fund balance and the impact on the ability to keep money in the state to use for job creation or to reduce the cost of employment. He acknowledged this is a judgment call; however, Alaska's unemployment tax rate per employee as a percent of total wages is relatively high compared to other states. He also suggested the UI trust fund [balance] is high. Hence, it seems like an appropriate time to consider flexibility and the language in Section 5 is suitable, doesn't place the state at risk, and would give the state flexibility. Additionally, the interest rate being provided for the UI trust fund balance is about 2.5 percent and the interest is applied to the UI Trust Fund itself; these are dedicated dollars that are part of the federal unified budget and can't be used for other purposes so some restriction exists. Further, the more money deposited to the UI Trust Fund may improve the overall solvency, but it is only maintained in federal unified budget and can't be used for other purposes. 9:48:29 AM MR. HOLMES summarized that Alaska is in good shape in terms of the UI Trust Fund as a percent of total wages and the average high cost multiple. Even if the fund dropped to the .08 rate, the UI Trust Fund would still have a balance of $230 million. 9:48:59 AM [HB 76 was held over.] 9:49:25 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:49 a.m. to 9:53 a.m.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB71 Supporting Documents-Assorted Letters of Support 3-1-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 71 |
HB84 ver A.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 84 |
HB84 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 84 |
HB84 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 84 |
HB84 Supporting Documents-Letter Ed Kringer DOD 2-11-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 84 |
HB84 Supporting Documents-Testimony-Mark San Souci Regional Liaison NW DOD 02182013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 84 |
HB76 ver A.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB76 Transmittal Letter 1-17-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB76 Sectional Analysis 1-21-2012.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB76 Fiscal Note-DOLWD-CO-1-17-13.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB76 Fiscal Note-DOLWD-UI-1-17-13.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB76 Supporting Documents-DOLWD Q&A 1-28-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB76 Supporting Document-UI STEP TVEP flow chart 1-29-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB76 Supporting Documents-UI Trust Fund Balances 2-14-2013 pdf.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB76 Supporting Documents-Letter NFIB 1-18-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB76 Supporting Documents-Treasury Offset Program 2-14-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB76 Supporting Documents-Historical UI Rates 1-21-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB76 Opposing Documents-Letter AK AFL-CIO 2-20-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB76 Opposing Documents-Letter AK District Council of Laborers 2-25-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB74 Supporting Documents-AIDEA-AEA Policy Presentation 3-4-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
HB74 Supporting Documents-Op Ed Newsminer - Fairbanks Chamber 2-16-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
HB74 Supporting Documents-AIDEA Project Analysis Process 2-26-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
HB74 Supporting Documents-Committee Questions & Answers 2-26-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
HB74 Supporting Documents-Interior Energy Plan.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
HB74 Supporting Documents-Letter-GFCC 2-15-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
HB74 Supporting Documents-North Pole Resolution(1) 2-4-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
HB74 Supporting Documents-North Pole Resolution(2) 2-4-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
HB71 Draft Proposed CS ver U.PDF |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 71 |
HB76 Opposing Documents-Letter Teamsters Local 959 3-4-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |
HB74 Supporting Documents-Letter Teamsters Local 959 3-4-2013.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/5/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |