Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/29/2000 01:45 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 29, 2000
1:45 P.M.
TAPE HFC 00 - 43, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 00 - 43, Side 2.
TAPE HFC 00 - 44, Side 1.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:45 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Foster
Co-Chair Mulder Representative Grussendorf
Vice Chair Bunde Representative Moses
Representative G. Davis Representative Phillips
Representative J. Davies Representative Williams
Representative Austerman was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Mike Tibbles, Staff, Representative Gene Therriault; Melinda
Hofstad, Staff, Representative Bill Hudson; Guy Bell,
Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department of
Administration; Ann Campbell, (Testified via
Teleconference), Chair, Alaska Travel Industry Association
(ATIA), Anchorage; Carol Kasza, (Testified via
Teleconference), Arctic Treks, Fairbanks; Geron Bruce,
Legislative Liaison, Department of Fish and Game; Jeff Bush,
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Community & Economic
Development; Bill Church, Retirement Supervisor, Division of
Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration.
SUMMARY
HB 206 An Act relating to the migratory game bird
conservation tag, to a nonresident combined sport
fishing and hunting license, to the nonresident
military small game and sport fishing license, to
applications for certain licenses, tags, and
permits issued by the Department of Fish and Game,
and to duplicate crewmember licenses.
HB 206 was HEARD and HELD for the new fiscal note
to be received by the Department of Fish and Game.
HB 335 An Act relating to information contained in
retirement system records; relating to retirement
boards; relating to procedures and hearings under
state retirement systems; relating to benefits for
re-employed retired members of retirement systems;
relating to eligibility for normal retirement for
members of the teachers' retirement system who
have Alaska BIA credited service; relating to
disability benefits for members of state
retirement systems; relating to deduction of
premiums from retirement benefits; relating to
protection of, and assignment and transfer of,
amounts held in retirement systems; relating to
retirement benefits for certain employees earning
high salaries; relating to qualified domestic
relations orders in state retirement systems;
relating to the definition of `retirement fund' in
the teachers' retirement system; relating to
membership of state employees in the teachers'
retirement system; relating to refund of
contributions made to the judicial retirement
system or to the former elected public officers
retirement system and repayment of refunded
contributions in those systems; relating to self-
insurance and excess loss insurance for persons
receiving benefits from a state retirement system;
relating to participation of elected officials in
the public employees' retirement system; relating
to reinstatement of credited service in the public
employees' retirement system after a refund
because of certain levies; relating to the level
income option benefit under the public employees'
retirement system; relating to participation of
employees of political subdivisions and public
organizations in the public employees' retirement
system; relating to penalties for attempts to
defraud the public employees' retirement system;
relating to the definition of `pension fund' in
the public employees' retirement system; relating
to calculation of years of service and of benefits
under the public employees' retirement system for
non-certificated employees of certain educational
employers; and relating to individual accounts
maintained for members of the former elected
public officers retirement system.
CS HB 335 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"no recommendation" and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Administration dated 2/23/00.
HB 420 An Act relating to tourism marketing contracts;
and providing for an effective date.
CS HB 420 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"no recommendation".
HOUSE BILL NO. 206
An Act relating to the migratory game bird conservation
tag, to a nonresident combined sport fishing and
hunting license, to the nonresident military small game
and sport fishing license, to applications for certain
licenses, tags, and permits issued by the Department of
Fish and Game, and to duplicate crewmember licenses.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIUALT, spoke
to the two modifications made in the work draft committee
substitute. The first change resulted from a conceptual
amendment insertion of "annual", Page 3, Line 12. Mr.
Tibble advised the other change addressed the confusing
wording in Section 5. That language was removed and the
specified amount for the non-resident military small game
hunting license and the amount for the non-resident sport-
fishing license.
Mr. Tibble's added that there was an error to Page 3, Line
30. The amount should read "$20".
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to adopt the work draft, 1-LS0858\M,
Utermohle, 2/29/00. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment #1, 1-LS0858\K.3,
Utermohle, 2/28/00. [Copy on File]. He explained that the
amendment would allow for a reciprocal relationship with the
Yukon Territory for a resident license fee. He noted that
the Yukon currently offers this option to Alaskans. He
suggested that to offer it back, would be in the "spirit of
compromising". Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED. He believed
it would be more advantageous for residents of the Yukon to
come into Alaska to fish than it would be for the Alaskan
residents to go into the Yukon.
Representative Phillips noted that this issue had come up
during the Subcommittee meetings. She pointed out the many
sport fishermen that go to the Yukon for hunting and
fishing. She supported the amendment, stating the timing
was right.
Co-Chair Mulder pointed out that the amendment addressed
only the Yukon Territory, not British Columbia. The Yukon is
not a large area, yet those residents have a mobile
population that likes to come into Alaska to take advantage
of these activities.
GERON BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, advised that there would be a fiscal impact with a
negative impact to revenues. He agreed with Co-Chair Mulder
that it would be minimal. Mr. Bruce commented that the
Department would need to do some analysis to determine the
amount.
Mr. Bruce advised that the Department has not taken a
position on the amendment at this point. He pointed out
that when Senator Donley enacted SB 7, it significantly
raised non-resident fishing license. The purpose of that
bill was to reduce the impact on Alaska resident fishers
from non-residents coming in and competing and the action
did have that effect. He noted that HB 206 would run
contrary to SB 7. Mr. Bruce stated that it is not clear that
the suggested arrangement is currently offered to Alaskans
going into the Yukon.
Vice Chair Bunde asked what type fisheries were in the
Yukon. Mr. Bruce could not speak to the type of fish
traffic going into the Yukon. Representative Grussendorf
agreed that there would be more pressure for the Canadians
to come into Alaska for fishing. He noted that he would not
support the amendment.
Vice Chair Bunde thought that the greatest impact would be
to Southeast Alaska. He asked the projected impact the bill
would have to the tourist industry. Mr. Bruce could only
speculate on that traffic.
Representative Phillips reiterated that the population in
the Yukon Territory is small and that the legislation would
bring "good will" between the two areas.
Discussion followed regarding the threat to the entire ferry
fleet in Canada for only six fish. Co-Chair Mulder
corrected that was in British Columbia and not the Yukon.
Co-Chair Therriault maintained his objection to the
amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Moses, Phillips, Bunde, G. Davis, Foster,
Mulder
OPPOSED: Williams, J. Davies, Grussendorf, Therriault
Representative Austerman was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-4).
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the amendment would change
the dollar amount. He requested that the Department provide
the new note before the bill would move from Committee. Co-
Chair Mulder commented that the fiscal note would affect the
Department of Fish and Game and not the general fund.
HB 206 was HELD in Committee for final approval of the
fiscal note.
HOUSE BILL NO. 420
An Act relating to tourism marketing contracts; and
providing for an effective date.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that HB 420 had been introduced
at his request and would address the shift in the contract
date between the Department and ATIA.
ANNE CAMPBELL, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CHAIR, ALASKA
TRAVEL INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (ATIA), ANCHORAGE, voiced her
concern regarding the timing scheduled to sign the upcoming
contract. She requested that it be changed because of
production expense and fund raising activities which need to
take place six to eight months before an advertising
campaign can be initiated.
She commented that visitors planning a trip to Alaska
require information approximately one year prior to their
intended travel date. Starting distribution of the 2001
Vacation Planner in October 2000 is critical to visitor
industry businesses. Research has shown that the peak
planning period for an Alaska vacation is 6 to 9 months
prior to the intended date of travel.
Ms. Campbell stated that ATIA is concerned that there needs
to be more clarity regarding the industry intent. The
industry understands that at this time, the fund will not be
available until July. By making that an earlier date would
provide ATIA a target date to address other activities
regarding production, marketing and raising commitments from
the private sector.
Co-Chair Therriault interjected that if the contract date
were changed, the Legislature would still be in session and
would be able to address concerns resulting from the
transition year. He thought that the Legislature should be
able to balance the marketing activity. He wanted to see
that written in contract and signed during session. He
asked if there would be problems completing the negotiations
by April 1st.
Ms. Campbell replied that ATIA hopes to be able to meet that
date. She pointed out that currently there is communication
between the Department and ATIA. She noted that there are
philosophical differences with the Department, however, both
parties are attempting to have a contract resolution as
expeditiously as possible.
Representative Phillips voiced concern that HB 420 had not
yet come to the Tourism Committee. She emphasized that the
proposed legislation changes more than the date.
Representative Phillips requested that the Department
testify on the changes which the legislation would make.
JEFF BUSH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT testified that the Department does have
concerns with the proposed legislation and listed the
general concerns. He noted that the April 1st date was to
early, however, August 1st would be better for everyone
involved. It is very difficult to negotiate a contract when
the amount of the contract is indefinite. Mr. Bush pointed
out that in the manner in which the legislation was
structured last year, the Department is responsible to
decide which components must exist in a tourism contract.
He stressed that it would be difficult to accomplish that
without knowing in advance what the funding level is going
to be.
Mr. Bush pointed out that an additional concern is that the
proposed April date falls at the end of the Legislature.
That is a very busy time for the Department and private
industry as well. He pointed out that the fund raising
takes place through the selling of the Vacation Planner ads
through May. He projected that it would be difficult for
industry to guarantee fund raising by the April 1st date.
Under statute, the industry would need to guarantee a match
requirement. He reiterated that it would be difficult to
raise the funds by the April 1st date.
Mr. Bush advised that the Department's concerns are more
magnified this year in as much as it is the transition year.
The legislation requires that the Department approve a
marketing plan. That marketing plan is supposed to be put
together by a marketing team. He indicated that the team
was just recently formed a couple of weeks ago. There has
not been a plan yet proposed by the industry. He stated
that the Department is confident that a plan will not be
available by April 1st.
Mr. Bush quoted AS 44.33.125(B), which lists the essential
components that should be included in a marketing contract.
Mr. Bush reiterated that creating such a plan is unrealistic
given the short period of time remaining before April 1st.
He mentioned the fund raising issue. He added that if a
contract is not entered into, then theoretically, the
Department is supposed to do the marketing without even
considering entering into a contract.
Mr. Bush noted that the State is responsible to determine
that the entity that they are contracting with has a set
membership. That membership is set, based upon who actually
joins the organization. The permanent members are not yet
known and the Department can not enter into a contract with
them until that information is available.
Representative Phillips inquired if the Department thought
that the concerns expressed could be handled by July 1st.
Mr. Bush replied that they could be addressed by then and
that it would be good timing as that is the beginning of the
new fiscal year.
Co-Chair Therriault interjected that the Department
negotiates contracts all the time that are contingent on
funding from the Legislature. He asked why that would be a
problem for this contract. Mr. Bush explained that it would
be uncomfortable with concerns such as the Internet
coverage. In conclusion, he stated it would be the
components "at the edge" that would be an issue for budget
concerns.
Co-Chair Therriault advised that the industry has indicated
that they would take the current plan and move it forward.
Mr. Bush explained that a proposal being rolled forward has
been expected since the beginning of the process. However,
the language of the statue reads that the marketing plan
must be put together by their marketing organization and
that it must meet the requirements of the statute. He
argued that there might be a dispute over some of the
details of that plan. Until the plan is presented to the
Department, there is no assurance that the existing program
will roll forward.
Vice Chair Bunde supported the idea of an April date giving
the Legislature long-term oversight, however, he understood
that this was a transition year and that the July might work
better. Mr. Bush acknowledged that moving the date to July
1st would alleviate many of the Department's concerns. He
admitted that there remain concerns regarding appropriations
following the contract issue.
Ms. Campbell clarified that the ATIA marketing committee has
been meeting for the past two weeks in order to able to meet
the deadlines. She requested more discussion regarding what
needs to be included in the marketing plan. Ms. Campbell
noted that April 1st is the goal.
Co-Chair Therriault inquired if the funding amount "slipped"
a little, would that language is expected in the contract.
Ms. Campbell explained that industry understands the
position of the Department, however, the reality is that
there are targets which will continue to work well for ATIA.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that there is a condensed
time period during the summer months when the tourism
activities are at their peak. He believed that last year,
the Legislature made the wrong decision when choosing the
August date. If the July 1st date were used, that would be
in conflict with the peak tourism period. Ms. Campbell
agreed the wrong date had been chosen.
Ms. Campbell pointed out that ATIA does not collect all the
funds at one time. ATIA is prepared to bring the match in
as the funds are brought in. Co-Chair Therriault inquired
the latest date that would work for ATIA that would not be
interuptive with seasonal business. Ms. Campbell replied
that industry could go with the May 1st date this year.
Representative J. Davies suggested an option would be to
forward fund the contract for one year, which would then
provide time for ATIA to raise the match. He agreed that
this year, presents a unique circumstance. Co-Chair
Therriault responded that he did not anticipate funding this
component for two years.
Representative Phillips pointed out that at present time,
the Department does not have an "entity" to negotiate with.
She agreed that there would be great merit in establishing
an earlier time for the industry in years out, but not this
year, the transition year. Representative Phillips
recommended that for this year only, the date be established
for July 1st and from then forward, the date could be set for
either April or May 1st.
CAROL KASZA, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ARCTIC TREKS,
FAIRBANKS, agreed with Department's recommendations
regarding the date change. She commented that she is a
member of ATIA. She believed that there would be a "shake
down" in the original negotiations. Ms. Kasza commented
that in the future, the April date would make more sense and
that the idea of forward funding would be the best idea.
Ms. Kasza voiced full support of fully funding the budget
for the Division of Tourism.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment 1, which would
change the date to May 1, on Page 1, Line 6. Representative
Phillips OBJECTED. She reiterated that one more month would
not work this year and that ATIA needs the time to get the
program in place so that it will be effective and the
transition has time to work.
Representative Grussendorf commented that the proposed
change would place the Division into a "state of flux" that
it would spread the Department to "thin". He supported a
date change to July 1st. Co-Chair Therriault reiterated that
it is important that the Legislature be in session in order
to comment on the final product.
Vice Chair Bunde questioned the urgency for this year. He
noted that May 1st would be too late for the Legislature to
have much input. Co-Chair Therriault explained that it is
important to get through the transition year. He believed
that this would be the most important year.
Representative G. Davis pointed out that this "plan" has
been thought out and discussed for a long time. He believed
that the plan could already be put in place. Co-Chair
Therriault reiterated his intent that the Committee was here
to look at the contract.
Representative Phillips emphasized that it is important to
realize that until the membership is set, the Department
does not have anyone to contract with. She pointed out the
concern has not yet been addressed.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Williams, Bunde, G. Davis, Foster, Mulder,
Therriault
OPPOSED: Phillips, J. Davies, Grussendorf, Moses
Representative Austerman was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-4).
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CS HB 420 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 420 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation".
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00-43, Side 2)
HOUSE BILL NO. 335
An Act relating to information contained in retirement
system records; relating to retirement boards; relating
to procedures and hearings under state retirement
systems; relating to benefits for re-employed retired
members of retirement systems; relating to eligibility
for normal retirement for members of the teachers'
retirement system who have Alaska BIA credited service;
relating to disability benefits for members of state
retirement systems; relating to deduction of premiums
from retirement benefits; relating to protection of,
and assignment and transfer of, amounts held in
retirement systems; relating to retirement benefits for
certain employees earning high salaries; relating to
qualified domestic relations orders in state retirement
systems; relating to the definition of `retirement
fund' in the teachers' retirement system; relating to
membership of state employees in the teachers'
retirement system; relating to refund of contributions
made to the judicial retirement system or to the former
elected public officers retirement system and repayment
of refunded contributions in those systems; relating to
self-insurance and excess loss insurance for persons
receiving benefits from a state retirement system;
relating to participation of elected officials in the
public employees' retirement system; relating to
reinstatement of credited service in the public
employees' retirement system after a refund because of
certain levies; relating to the level income option
benefit under the public employees' retirement system;
relating to participation of employees of political
subdivisions and public organizations in the public
employees' retirement system; relating to penalties for
attempts to defraud the public employees' retirement
system; relating to the definition of `pension fund' in
the public employees' retirement system; relating to
calculation of years of service and of benefits under
the public employees' retirement system for
noncertificated employees of certain educational
employers; and relating to individual accounts
maintained for members of the former elected public
officers retirement system.
MELINDA HOFSTAD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON,
explained that HB 335 had been introduced at the request of
the Division of Retirement and Benefits, and is a clean up
bill. Ms. Hofstad noted that according to the Department of
Administration, there are federal laws, court settlements
and other technical issues that need to be addressed in
updated State law. Additionally, indicated in the
legislation are some efficiency measures requested by
various retirement boards. She added that there has not
been a clean-up bill for many years and some of the issues
addressed in HB 335 are longstanding ones.
Ms. Hofstad added that the legislation is aimed at
addressing issues involving clarification of current
practices and law, compliance with new federal laws,
compliance with various settlements, and board efficiencies.
She noted that every effort had been made to stay away from
policy changes.
Ms. Hofstad concluded that there is nothing in the
legislation that enhances or diminishes any retirement
benefit for active employees or retirees in any public
retirement system, and no section, which will increase
employer's costs.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to adopt the work draft version 1-
LS1217\K, Cramer, 2/29/00, as the version before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted
GUY BELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRAITON, spoke to the changes made in
the version before the Committee. He provided a brief
sectional analysis. Mr. Bell commented that he had spoken
to each Committee member or their staff regarding the
legislation. Representative J. Davies pointed out that
discussion had not been to the version before the Committee
at present time. Co-Chair Therriault advised that the
committee substitute had "dropped out" a few sections.
? Mr. Bell stated that Section 1 was needed as a result
of Court action. The section exempts member's records,
including retiree records under the Public Records Act.
Co-Chair Therriault asked why the retiree organization
should have access to that information. Mr. Bell replied
that those retirees would be representing the interest of
the systems retirees, and disseminating information from the
retiree organization.
Vice Chair Bunde inquired if that organization was composed
only of members from the State system. Mr. Bell replied
that the language is specific to retires receiving benefits
under one of the State's systems.
Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that it was the intent of the
Alaska Association of Retired Persons (AARP) to represent
people retired from a number of different systems. Mr. Bell
explained that the section was more narrowly defined and
that they must be affiliated with an organization
representing employees in this system.
Co-Chair Therriault inquired where that section came from.
Mr. Bell replied that piece resulted from requests from the
retiree organizations. He could not remember who that group
consisted of.
? Section 2 is a technical clean up for the physician
board members recommendation for efficiency for medical
disability appeals.
Representative Grussendorf questioned the appeal process.
Mr. Bell explained the way the disability process works. If
a claim is denied, the person has the right to appeal. The
retirement board then has a formal appeal. If it is a
medical disability, the board would include two physicians
to participate and then they would make the ruling. He
noted that decision could be open to challenge in the
Supreme Court.
? Section 3 would carry a fiscal impact. Mr. Bell noted
that a fiscal note had been submitted with the bill for
$29 thousand dollars. This section would provide an
honorarium payment to the Teacher Retirement System
(TRS) Board members.
? Section 4 would place in statute, regulations defining
a quorum.
Representative J. Davies asked what had been dropped. Mr.
Bell replied that Section 4 was dropped out of the work
draft before the Committee.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that after he had requested that
the committee substitute be drafted, he had reconsidered his
choice. He noted that he had an amendment drafted to
address that concern, 1-LS1217\K.1, Cramer, 2/29/00. [Copy
on File].
? Mr. Bell noted that Section 4 was an effort to make the
hearing process consistent with the appeals.
? Section 5 makes a clarification or correction which the
Department believes is appropriate for the penalty a
person takes when they retire early and then
subsequently comes back to work.
BILL CHURCH, RETIREMENT SUPERVISOR, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT
AND BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, noted that when
someone elects to retire before their normal retirement
date, they take a reduced benefit spread over their life-
time. When someone returns to work under the current law,
they forego their retirement benefit for reemployment. Once
they re-retire, their benefit is recalculated, however,
the first contract remains in place. There are no
adjustments to that benefit currently under law. Section 5
would give equity so that the individual would be able to
receive back the equity that they had lost.
? Mr. Bell commented that Section 6 would clarify the
existing practice for the Bureau of Indian Services
(BIA) section.
? Section 7 adds another clarification of how the State
does business on disability benefits for teachers.
? Section 8 addresses filing requirements for
disabilities by making them the same for teachers and
public employees. It would create consistency between
the TRS and Personnel Employee Retirement System
(PERS).
? Section 10, contained in the State Affairs version, has
been deleted from the current work draft. That section
clarified that the TERS board does have a roll in
advising on ad hoc pension and post retirement pension
adjustments.
Representative J. Davies asked why that section had not been
included. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the language would
"muddy" the waters by including it in statute as the
practice is currently being done.
Representative J. Davies inquired why the board had
requested that clarification. Mr. Bell replied that the
Board felt that this was an important role of theirs. He
acknowledged that this is not currently an issue.
Representative J. Davies acknowledged that he knew very
little regarding this area. He suggested that the language
might avoid expensive lawsuits.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the Board would be making the
policy calls or giving the advice. He questioned if
inclusion of that language would provide an opening for
potential problems.
? Mr. Bell stated that Section 11 was a clarification of
the practice regarding the deducting of retiree
insurance premiums from the retirement checks.
? Section 12 addresses the Qualified Domestic Relations
Order (QDRO) and allows the alternate employee the
right to receive the identified portion of a
contribution account.
? Section 13 allows direct rollover of an individual's
retirement account to an IRA, which would be a
convenience to all members.
Representative Phillips questioned if there was a charge
associated for that service. Mr. Bell replied that there is
no charge or penalty for that service. It is more
convenient for the Department. The second part of Section
13 is a deletion for the authorization for a voluntary
deduction of the membership dues. It has been deleted in
the committee substitute.
Representative J. Davies asked why it had been removed. Co-
Chair Therriault advised that he personally did not like the
automatic system.
? Mr. Bell continued, Sections 14 & 15 clarify that if a
person commits fraud, it is a Class A misdemeanor.
? Section 16 is an Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
requirement adjustment.
? Section 17 sets a limit on compensation base
calculation of retirement benefits.
? Section 18 is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order
(QDRO) definition to clarify that a former spouse has a
right to the contribution account of a member.
? Section 19 clarifies who in the Department of Education
is in the TRS system.
? Section 20 moves the Judicial Retirement System (JRS).
? Sections 21-24 address the same situation in the JRS
QDRO's concern and the ability to roll money directly
to an IRA and the deduction of premiums for insurance.
? Section 25 takes the same actions for the National
Guard and Naval Militia Retirement System.
? Section 26 adds language authorizing self-insurance for
the retiree-medical, dental, audio and long term care.
? Section 27 would separate the PERS Board from the other
personnel boards.
? Section 28 would change the election process.
Co-Chair Therriault advised that Section 28 was included as
the Alaska State Pension Investment Board (ASPIB) uses that
system. Representative Phillips asked if it was common
practice that a majority of members not be present for a
vote. Mr. Bell noted that over the past elections years,
there have been multiple candidates with voter run off.
? Mr. Bell commented that Section 29 identifies the
appointment and number of physician members to the PERS
Board.
? Section 30 provides for an honorarium payment to the
PERS Board members consistent with that paid to the
members of the ASPIB.
? Section 31 relates to the definition of a quorum for
the conduct of its business. He noted that this
resulted from the passage of SB 9, last session.
? Section 32 clarifies that the PERS Board has the
authority to adopt regulations for the conduct of
hearings.
? Section 33 is new and applies to PERS membership only
in how to move in and out of the retirement system for
elected officials.
? Section 34 addresses the early retirement system
previously addressed by Mr. Church.
? Sections 35-39 relates to SB 9 and the revocability of
an election for non-certificated school district
employees.
? Sections 40-41 address the filing requirements for
disabilities.
? Section 42 clarifies that the level income option,
which was repealed in 1996, is available to people in
the system before that date.
? Section 43 would clarify that the PERS Board has an
advisory role and ad hoc for post retirement pension
vestments. That section has been deleted in the work
draft.
? New Section 43 addresses the QDRO for member account
contributions.
? Section 44 allows the rollover into an individual
retirement account.
? Sections 45-47 removes language no longer necessary
because of sections added earlier in the bill.
? Section 48 is the authorization to deduct retiree
insurance premiums.
? Section 49 is a new section applying to PERS only. It
addresses issues where employee requests the employer
to withdraw their coverage in the PERS system.
? Section 50 defines the Class A misdemeanor and added to
that particular retirement system. Mr. Bell noted that
this was another clarification of SB 9, regarding the
basis calculation for the surcharge.
? Sections 51-52 are the highly compensated individual
requirements of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code
for PERS.
? Section 53 clarifies that the income on investments of
the PERS fund does belong to that fund.
? Section 54 speaks to the QDRO's related language for
the PERS.
? Section 55 would remove the physician's members of the
PERS and TRS board from the requirements of Sections 39
and 50.
? Section 56 provides repeller language to the current
language contained in law.
? Sections 57-58 are changes to the Elected Public
Retirement System (EPORS) and make that statute
consistent with the PERS and TRS.
? Section 59 was previously addressed and makes that
language consistent.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #1, which
speaks to the setting of the quorum. [Copy on File]. Mr.
Bell explained that the amendment would provide clear
authority in statute to allow the boards to do what they
currently have already been doing.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 44, Side 1).
Mr. Bell noted that any thing that the Board does could be
challenged in Court. The amendment would provide an
effective way to protect that challenge.
Vice Chair Bunde voiced support of the amendment. He asked
if the amendment should contain additional guidance language
assuming a minimum of members. Mr. Bell suggested that
would be a policy call for the Legislature to make. He did
not think that it would be a necessary call. The Board does
not have independent regulation making authority and it
would be subject to public process.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to report CS HB 335 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 335 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal note by the Department of
Administration dated 2/23/00.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:25 P.M.
H.F.C. 16 2/29/00
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|