Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/31/2015 01:30 PM House 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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB68 | |
| HB143 | |
| HB135 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 31, 2015
2:28 p.m.
2:28:37 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 2:28 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Jane Pierson, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson;
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Sponsor; Crystal
Koeneman, Staff, Representative Cathy Munoz; Adam Berg,
Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon; Sarah Fisher-Goad,
Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development; John
Springsteen, Executive Director, Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority; Andy Mills, Legislative
Liaison, Department of Administration; Kathy Lea, Chief
Pension Officer, Division of Retirement and Benefits,
Department of Administration.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Wayne Zigarlick, Vice President and General Manager,
Kensington Gold Mine.
SUMMARY
HB 68 ELECTRONIC DISTRIB. OF REPORTS
CSHB 68(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1 (GOV).
HB 135 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE ROTH CONTRIBUTIONS
HB 135 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 143 AIDEA BONDS, LOANS, FUND; AEA LOAN
HB 143 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the agenda for the day.
HOUSE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to the preparation, electronic
distribution, and posting of reports by state
agencies."
2:29:53 PM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 68, Work Draft 29-LS0352\I (Nauman,
03/24/15).
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
reviewed the changes in the Committee Substitute (CS) bill.
She reported that two changes were made to the bill found
on page 3. The first change on lines 16 through 18 read as
follows:
(b) A report produced and distributed by a state
agency shall prominently state the Internet website
where a digital copy and the physical address where a
print copy of the report may be found.
Ms. Pierson identified the second change found on line 24:
Sec. 44.99.260. Print copy requests. A person may
obtain, at no charge, up to two print copies of
reports from the state library distribution and data
access center under AS 14.56.170 each day…
Ms. Pierson communicated that "two" was changed from "four"
due to the large size of some of the reports.
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, SPONSOR, recapped
HB 68. He explained that the legislation digitized state
reports that were printed in large quantities at a
"significant" cost to the state. He believed that the bill
modernized how the state disseminated reports and
information.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for a description of the legislation
and reasons why the bill was important. Representative
Kreiss-Tompkins noted that HB 68 was projected to save the
state a half million dollars each year. He believed that
the bill increased the public's access to public
information and standardized the way reports were made
available to the public electronically. Additionally, the
legislation created a standard for digitization and
archival of state reports. A consequence of the bill
increased the amount of reports for archiving needs from
four to five. The need was discovered when performing
research for the bill. He summarized that the bill
digitized state reports, saved the state money, and
standardized the means of digital access to the
information.
2:35:17 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked about people that do not have access
to the internet. He wondered how they will have access to
state reports. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins responded
that, relatively nothing is really changing for people that
live in rural areas or lacked internet access. The state
was not automatically mailing copies of reports to people
in rural areas without internet, access to public radio, or
newspapers. He elaborated that HB 68 entitled anyone who
wanted a copy of a report to contact the state library
system and request copies. He offered that the bill created
parallel paths for any individual who wanted state reports;
one was electronic and the other supplied hard copies
through the mail. He thought that the language in the bill
that allowed for the supply of hard copies was enhanced and
"iron-clad" going beyond existing law.
Co-Chair Neuman wondered how people would know if the
information is available to them. Representative Kreiss-
Tompkins responded that currently the isolated individual
was in the same situation without HB 68. The person could
call or write the state library and request a report. He
claimed that current statute did not specify that the
person could request copies from the state library system.
He did not know how any bill could solve the problem of
making the public aware of the existence of state reports.
He believed that the legislation protected and enhanced the
access to public information if people wanted it and did
not inhibit access to state reports in any way. He
suggested that the information regarding citizens' access
to public information could be incorporated into school
civics curriculum. He would like to make more Alaskans
aware of their right to public information, but HB 68 did
not address the issue.
Co-Chair Thompson thought that the bill would make state
reports more accessible to people living more remotely and
desired the information. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins
agreed.
2:40:12 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler appreciated Representative Kreiss-
Tompkins accepting his amendment. He asked what he based
the $500 thousand in savings on since the amount was not
reflected in the fiscal note (FN 1 (Various)).
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins responded that the actual
savings were indeterminate but would be a "negative
number." He shared that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) provided the $570 thousand as a total amount for the
state's aggregate printing costs. The legislation allowed a
commissioner or division director to determine whether a
report was so important that it should be both printed and
digitized. Therefore, some printing costs were still
applicable. In addition, he exemplified pamphlets and
brochures from the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) as information that
warranted hard copies.
Representative Munoz related that often the cost of
printing several copies of publications were close to the
cost of printing "hundreds of copies." She asked whether
the reports would be copied as published reports or merely
Xeroxed copies. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins responded
that the bill contained a provision that required the
reports to be produced in-house and not published as glossy
publications designed by commercial graphic designers. He
remarked that the savings created by the in-house
requirement was not calculated in the fiscal note and would
further enhance the savings. The reports would no longer be
published in an elaborate format and would be able to be
printed as a PDF. He deferred to the state library system
for a more definitive answer.
Representative Munoz wanted to put on the record that the
intent of the bill was to save costs and ease simplicity of
printing in order to produce the savings. Representative
Kreiss-Tompkins agreed with her statement.
2:45:14 PM
Representative Kawasaki appreciated the bill. He referred
to a Legislative Research report listing the state agency
reports required by statute. He asked whether the bill
would supersede the current statute that required
legislators to receive printed copies of mandated reports.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins responded in the
affirmative. He explained that some agencies had already
decided to send its mandated reports to legislators via an
electronic link by email. He understood that statutorily
mandated reports would all be disseminated electronically
to legislators with passage of the bill. He qualified that
the reports would be sent electronically unless a
commissioner or division director determined that a "high
and public" need existed for hard copies of the report. He
noted that a division director included a lieutenant
governor, governor, and the legislative branch. In the case
the legislature or governor's office produced an important
publication deemed worthy of printing the appropriate
entity could produce a hard copy of its report.
Representative Kawasaki lifted a basket of reports that he
had received within the past couple of days. He voiced that
he also received a large quantity of emails each day. He
expressed concern that he would "lose" report notices
hiding in his email. He did not want to receive all of the
mandated reports; only certain reports as hard copies. He
wondered if there was a way legislators could opt out of
receiving paper reports. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins
responded in the negative. He explained that agencies did
not have a mechanism to send out reports in that manner. He
understood Representative Kawasaki's email issue.
2:51:19 PM
Co-Chair Thompson referred to page 3, line 20. He read from
the page:
…electronic posting on the Alaska Online Public Notice
System (AS 44.62.175) fulfills any obligation in state
law to publish, prepare, or present a report, and
electronic distribution fulfills any obligation in
state law to submit a report.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 68(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 68(FIN) was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (GOV).
2:53:38 PM
AT EASE
2:56:35 PM
RECONVEYNED
HOUSE BILL NO. 143
"An Act authorizing the Alaska Industrial Development
and Export Authority to issue bonds to finance the
infrastructure and construction costs of the
Sweetheart Lake hydroelectric project; and relating to
legislative approval for a loan from the power project
fund to the Lynn Canal Transmission Corporation."
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 143, Work Draft 29-LS0599\E (Wallace,
03/26/15).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:57:57 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ,
discussed the legislation. She explained that the bill
provided legislative authority for the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) to issue bonds to
finance the infrastructure and construction costs of the
Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric project. In addition, the
bill authorized Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to provide
loans from the Power Project Fund (PPF) for both the Lynn
Canal Transmission Corporation and the King Cove Waterfall
Creek Hydroelectric Project. She detailed that the Federal
Regulatory Agency had accepted the Sweetheart Creek
hydropower license application and was currently processing
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Sweetheart
Creek project would provide Juneau with an additional 116
thousand megawatt hours; an increase in Juneau's energy
capacity of 25 percent. The project would also provide 85
new jobs, new recreational infrastructure, and fishery
enhancements. The Lynn Canal transmission project would add
approximately 35 miles of transmission line from the
existing Lena substation to the Kensington Mine. She noted
support from the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ), and the
Southeast Conference.
ADAM BERG, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, reviewed the
King Cove Waterfall Creek Project. He communicated that a
statutory requirement for a loan from the Power Project
Fund (PPF) was legislative approval of loans exceeding $5
million. The Waterfall Creek project immediately required a
loan of $1.2 million, and to advance to construction a loan
totaling $6 million was necessary. He highlighted that the
project was fully designed, permitted, and construction bid
ready. The completed project would provide King Cove the
capability to produce 75 percent of its energy needs with
hydroelectricity.
Ms. Koeneman revealed that passage of the legislation did
not guarantee project completion. The projects were
required to pass financial, economic, and technical
feasibility studies and due diligence analysis as well as
board approval to move forward.
3:02:15 PM
Co-Chair Neuman referred to the new Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED) fiscal note for
AEA. He read from the analysis:
Although HB 143 provides AEA with required
authorization for a loan, the PPF does not have a
balance sufficient to fund a $22,000,000 loan. The PPF
currently has approximately $13,000,000 in uncommitted
funds. Without additional funds AEA would be able to
provide a loan of approximately $9,000,000.
Co-Chair Neuman asked where the additional loan funds would
come from. Ms. Koeneman offered that the PPF was
replenished as loans were repaid. She stated that
sufficient funds would be available for the loans in HB
143.
Co-Chair Neuman suggested that if the PPF did not currently
have sufficient funds there would not be enough to provide
loans for the bill's projects as well as other worthy
projects around the state. He voiced that the bill asked
for future financing from an account with insufficient
funds. He thought that the state would be financing the
projects in HB 143 at the expense of other communities with
higher energy costs and greater need. He wondered how the
issue should be dealt with.
Ms. Koeneman responded that there were additional private
investment funds that would potentially be available and
the loan amount was "up to $22 million." She elaborated
that the bill granted AEA the authority to provide the
loans if the fund became solvent within the next few years.
She understood Co-Chair Neuman's concerns.
3:05:27 PM
SARAH FISHER-GOAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENERGY
AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, explained that the way AEA handled the loans
in the past; when the legislation authorized a greater
amount than existed in the PPF, AEA worked with the
applicant to accept a smaller loan amount. She indicated
that AEA ensured that a proper financing plan was in place
for construction in order to move forward with the project.
Co-Chair Neuman restated his question. He was concerned
that with limited funding for other areas in the state with
greater need and higher energy costs including interior
Alaska, which would not have access to the PPF and their
projects would be in jeopardy. Ms. Sarah Fisher-Goad
replied that AEA attempted to anticipate other needs and
limited the loan to $9 million. She qualified that the
fiscal note was written before the King Cove project was
added. She reiterated that AEA worked with applicants to
provide smaller loans in order not to drain the fund for
smaller communities and utilities that also applied for
loans. She shared that AEA was very aware that the fund was
needed for other projects. She announced that AEA recently
provided a small loan to Pilot Point for diesel generator
repairs. She assured that AEA always kept loan funds
available in order to finance loans for smaller
communities.
Representative Wilson asked about the King Cove project.
She asked whether the community already received Power Cost
Equalization (PCE) and if so, would the project have a
positive impact to substantially lower energy bills. Mr.
Berg deferred to Ms. Sarah Fisher-Goad.
Ms. Sarah Fisher-Goad responded that King Cove did receive
Power Cost Equalization (PCE) but was uncertain what impact
the project would have to lower energy costs. She furthered
that the community of King Cove was very proactive with the
development of hydropower and lowering costs. King Cove had
lower power costs than many other communities due to the
development of hydropower and just barely qualified for
loans from the Renewable Energy Fund due to AEA's emphasis
on higher cost areas. She conveyed that she did not have
the communities PCE figures available but expected that the
project would be "beneficial" to the rate payers.
Representative Wilson requested the information. She wanted
to see communities become more self-sufficient and wanted
AEA to determine whether the project would also lower rates
and therefore, lower PCE payouts and base loan criteria on
those outcomes.
3:11:27 PM
Representative Kawasaki cited the fiscal note and
referenced the PPF balance of $13 million in "uncommitted
funds." He asked whether that meant there were no other
projects under consideration by AEA. Ms. Sarah Fisher-Goad
responded that there were two projects that were pending as
part of the available balance. She reported that AEA
currently had projects, working their way through other
requirements, with committed loan funds not yet distributed
that were still in the fund but not loanable. The cash
balance of the PPF was higher than $13 million considering
the committed funds. She provided the example of the
Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric project which had a $20
million committed loan from the PPF.
Representative Kawasaki asked for instances when AEA would
not authorize the entire loan amount and under what
reasoning. Ms. Sarah Fisher-Goad related a similar
situation for a project in Sitka that received an
authorization for $18 million but the PPF balance was
lower. The City of Sitka was able to find a better loan
with lower interest through the municipal bond bank and
financed the project through the bond bank. She added that
in the past AEA received alternative appropriations for the
loan fund. In 2010, AEA sold the loan portfolio to AIDEA
for a cash infusion into the fund and received a $10
million appropriation directly into the fund. She noted
that another alternative for a project to receive funding
through PPF was through a direct appropriation into the
fund similar to the Humpback Creek project in Cordova.
Representative Munoz requested time to allow Mr. Ziglick
to testify. Co-Chair Thompson agreed.
3:15:45 PM
Representative Guttenberg declared that the Interior Energy
Project (IEP) only needed authorization to change the way
appropriated funds would be used. He claimed that the
interior communities paid some of the highest utility rates
in the nation on a road system. He asked what the kilowatt
costs were currently for the rate payers in the communities
the projects in HB 143 would serve. He wondered what the
savings for the rate payers would be. Ms. Sarah Fisher-Goad
reported that the City of King Cove paid 23 cents per
kilowatt hour after a PCE rate of 8 cents per kilowatt
hour. She would provide additional information with respect
to what the rates would be after the King Cove project was
operational. She informed the committee that AEA did not
have an application from the Lynn Canal transmission
project and deferred to a project spokesman for an answer.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether the transmission
project was "advanced enough." Ms. Sarah Fisher-Goad
responded that without an application she had not done any
analysis. She knew that the project was "closely linked"
with the Sweetheart Lake project.
WAYNE ZIGARLICK, VICE PRESIDENT and GENERAL MANAGER, COEUR
ALASKA KENSINGTON GOLD MINE (via teleconference), stated
that the gold mine was located approximately 45 miles north
of Juneau. He delineated that the mine employed 320 direct
employees and approximately 40 contract employees. The
operation took approximately 8 megawatts of electrical
power to support all of the mining activities. The power
was currently supplied by 7 diesel generators. The cost of
power generation including fuel and maintenance amounted to
12 to 15 percent of the mine's operating cost. He noted
that the power costs were the second greatest operating
expense behind labor costs. He believed that hydroelectric
power would significantly reduce the mines power costs and
increase the mines sustainability. He reported that Coeur
Alaska entered into a "letter agreement" with Juneau
Hydropower. The essence of the agreement committed Coeur
Alaska to negotiate a power sales agreement with Juneau
Hydropower "once the terms of the agreement can be
identified." He relayed that he was the President of the
Lynn Canal Transmission Corporation, which was a "non-
profit entity designed to provide open and non-
discriminatory transmission line services to the northern
Lynn Canal at the lowest possible cost."
3:20:50 PM
Representative Gara did not have a problem with the bill.
He summarized that the loan would be provided to the Lynn
Canal Transmission Corporation to interconnect to the
Kennsington Mine and only applied to the northern Lynn
Canal region. He wanted to know whether other "major" users
aside from the mine would benefit from the transmission
line. Mr. Zigarlick replied that there were other
residential users and landowners that would benefit from
the transmission line.
Co-Chair Thompson requested that the bill's sponsor provide
the committee with more information on how many people the
projects would serve.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to the letter from AEA (copy on
file) that stated AEA would engage in the "due diligence"
necessary for authorization of the loan regardless of
passage of the legislation. However the letter from AIDEA
(copy on file) stated that they would not proceed without
authorization. He asked for clarification regarding the
discrepancy and wondered how much AEA would expend on due
diligence in the absence of authorization. He read the
following from the AEA letter:
Independent of the legislative authorization and upon
receipt of a PPF loan application AEA will complete
project due diligence analysis of the financial,
economic, and technical feasibility of the project.
Ms. Sarah Fisher-Goad commented that her letter was not
phrased correctly and apologized. She clarified that her
use of the word "independent" meant that the due diligence
would be an effort independent of the authorization. She
explained that even with authorization of the loan, AEA
would still engage in a due diligence effort and emphasized
that the authorization for the loan did not mean the loan
would be approved.
Vice-Chair Saddler relayed that he was familiar with a
Southeast Alaska Regional future energy plan. He wondered
how the projects fit into the plan. Ms. Sarah Fisher-Goad
indicated that she would have to review the Southeast
Integrated Resource plan to determine whether the projects
were specifically addressed in the plan. She would provide
the information.
Representative Munoz indicated that the Integrated Resource
Plan was not accepted by the region because of its
recommendation to utilize woodstoves as a primary source of
generating the regions electricity. She cautioned that she
would not rely on the study's outcomes to draw any
conclusions about the bill's projects. She added that the
projects were supported by the Southeast Conference which
was a regional entity of Southeast communities and
businesses.
3:25:27 PM
Representative Pruitt remembered that the report
recommended that Southeast should turn to wood burning
stoves. He indicated that the projects would help mitigate
the issues created by wood burning in the Juneau area.
Representative Munoz offered that the project would
increase the city's hydroelectric capacity by 20 percent
and positively impact rate users.
Representative Edgmon surmised that both projects met the
objectives of the Alaska Energy Policy that was adopted in
2010. He recalled that the policy identified the PPF as the
primary source of funding for projects that benefitted rate
payers and for business development. He requested an
opportunity to further discuss the policy during the next
hearing on the bill.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that many communities
around the state are moving towards using biomass fueled
energy. He stated that Southeast had an ample quantity of
biomass and cited a biomass project in Tok for heating
schools. He believed that biomass took the pressure off of
using transmission lines.
Representative Munoz stated that she had not intended to
diminish the use of biomass fuels and stated that there
were successful biomass projects in Southeast. She
commented that the integrated plan recommended a major
conversion of much of the region which did not fit the
model of a region rich in water resources. She believed
that biomass was part of the solution but not the entire
solution.
HB 143 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 135
"An Act establishing a Roth contribution program for
the public employees' deferred compensation program;
and providing for an effective date."
3:29:50 PM
ANDY MILLS, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, explained that the Deputy Commissioner
could not be present for the current meeting. He reviewed
HB 135. He related that the bill was a way for employees to
control the timing of taxation of their deferred
contributions. Currently the deferred compensation plan was
a pre-tax option. Taxes would be paid at the time of
retirement. The bill allowed for another deferred
compensation option that was a post-tax plan. Taxes would
not be paid in the future. Employees could then have a mix
of pre-tax and post-tax options in their retirement
portfolios. He furthered that current Alaska statutes only
allowed for tax deferred contributions into the plan and
was passed in 1973. In 2011, Congress passed legislation
that enabled state governments to provide the Roth 457
option. He deduced that the Roth 457 was another option for
public employees to diversify their retirement portfolio
and merely offered another deferred compensation option.
Co-Chair Thompson asked whether the post-tax contribution
earnings were taxable.
KATHY LEA, CHIEF PENSION OFFICER, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT
AND BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, explained that
the objective of a designated ROTH contribution was that
the earnings were not taxed upon distribution if they met
the qualification rules. The qualification rules required
that the Roth account was intact for five tax years, and
the member's age was 59 and a half.
Representative Guttenberg asked what the benefit for the
employee was by opening the Roth through the state. Ms. Lea
explained that the designated Roth contribution differed
from the private sector Roth IRA because it took on the
characteristics of a deferred compensation plan. Therefore,
the total contribution was greater than what was allowed in
the private sector Roth accounts. In addition. there was
not an income requirement to participate in the plan.
Representative Guttenberg asked what the maximum
contribution was. Ms. Lea responded that the maximum
contribution for deferred compensation was $18 thousand per
year. She continued that the employee could elect a pre or
post tax plan or contribute to both options. The state was
required to account for both options differently.
3:35:05 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked whether there was an
expected rate of return. Ms. Lea stated that Roth 457 was
not an investment option it was a taxation option. She
indicated that the investment vehicles in the deferred
compensation plan remained the same and the rate of return
depended upon the investment plans the employee chose.
Co-Chair Thompson asked whether the $18 thousand limit on
deferred compensation contributions applied to both pre and
post tax options. Ms. Lea answered that the limit applied
to both options and was the total limit if the employee
chose a combination.
Co-Chair Neuman wondered why the deferred compensation plan
was not set up with both options when the plan was
implemented. Ms. Lea explained that the Roth option only
became available on January 1, 2011.
Representative Pruitt expressed concerns with the state
taking on the additional role of financial advisor. He
wondered how the state could convey the information to the
employees in a way that they could relay the proper
information to their personal financial advisor or
correctly manage their retirement accounts on their own.
Ms. Lea reported that a contribution to the state ROTH 457
would not prohibit an employee from also contributing to a
private sector Roth IRA. The plan also provided some
optional financial education and advice to employees.
Representative Pruitt misunderstood the plan and thought
that $18 thousand limit was the full contribution an
employee could make in both the state and private plans.
3:40:08 PM
Mr. Mills commented that retirement investments were highly
personalized and noted the probable benefits of a post-tax
option. He thought that the additional plan "empowered
employees with options."
Vice-Chair Saddler stated that the Roth 457 was simply a
different vehicle to manage deferred compensation.
3:41:19 PM
HB 135 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
3:41:55 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:42 p.m.