Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/15/2000 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 BILL NO. 230
An Act granting certain dispatchers in police or fire
departments or for the state troopers status as peace
officers under the public employees' retirement system;
and providing for an effective date.
Representative J. Davies MOVED that work draft #1-LS0958\H,
Cramer, 2/15/00, be the version before the Committee. There
being NO OBJECTION, the work draft was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT stated that HB 230 will require all
dispatchers under the Public Employees Retirement System
(PERS), who elect to change from a thirty year retirement to
a twenty year retirement, to pay the employees and the
employers contribution of the costs of that twenty year
retirement conversion.
Representative Kott noted that approximately 263 PERS
employees would be affected by the legislation and of that
number, approximately 65 are state employees. The cost to
each employee for the employee contribution would be
approximately $450 dollars per year of service under the
PERS system.
Representative Kott advised that would be a total cost of
approximately $900 dollars per year for years of service
under the PERS system for each employee that elects to
change his or her retirement terms. Under the proposed
legislation, there would be no cost to the employer and the
employee would pay all costs when they voluntarily elect to
make the change in their retirement system.
Representative Kott noted that dispatchers are in training
for a year, which, he pointed out was a major financial
commitment. He believed that training would help to prevent
burnout and retain personnel. There is zero cost associated
with the legislation and participants would be able opt for
a longer period than the 20 years.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the original fiscal
note accompanying the bill had been indeterminate. He
explained that in the original legislation, there was an
unknown cost, whereas, the language contained in the
committee substitute changed that status.
Representative G. Davis asked if a person had worked for ten
years and then decided to work for a total of twenty years,
would they then be able to begin payments at that time.
Representative Kott explained that the bill does not provide
for that option. He pointed out that in the previous
version of the bill, the employee would be required to buy
it up front. He added, in the proposed legislation, there
exists an unknown quantity, which would be fairly close to
how much that person would be responsible to pay for the 20-
year period. He suggested that the employee could set aside
money on a monthly basis in order to make a bulk payment.
Co-Chair Therriault did not believe that it would be good to
place an employee into a situation where they would be
responsible for making an additional contribution. He
suggested that the best way to address this would be for the
employee to have the option to either increase their
deferred compensation to set money aside or establish an
annuity to make contributions. The Division of Retirement
and Benefits could help those employees determine a
realistic number to target at the end of the 20 years.
KAREN CHILDERS, COMMUNICATION SUPERVISOR, JUNEAU POLICE
DEPARTMENT, JUNEAU, stated that public safety dispatching is
like no other job. The nature of the job requires
technical, communication, multitasking and interpersonal
skills. What separates the job from others is that a
dispatcher must have the ability to disengage their emotions
in order to do what needs to be done. She advised that
dispatchers deal with the worst of life's realities. They
talk with people that are angry, scared, intoxicated,
suicidal, mentally ill, victims of domestic violence and
child abuse. She stated that true dispatchers are capable
of doing the job because it satisfies something inside them.
They do it for reasons that are difficult to understand.
Ms. Childers concluded that with HB 230, the State of Alaska
would have the opportunity to do the just and equal thing.
Not to discount dispatchers as clerical help, but instead to
recognize dispatchers as in integral member of the public
safety and law enforcement team. She urged passage of the
legislation, noting that Alaska now has the opportunity to
show their support for these front-line workers.
DELL SMITH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, commented that he has supervised dispatchers for the
past 30 years. He emphasized that it is a very stressful
job. The opportunity to get out of a stressful job and
maintain a good attitude is extremely important. The
proposed legislation provides an opportunity to retain and
keep good dispatchers who can see "a light at the end of the
tunnel". Mr. Smith reiterated how important it is to
maintain and keep good dispatchers.
Mr. Smith pointed out that the Alaska Association Chief's of
Police strongly supports this legislation.
GUY BELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, in response to Representative
Foster, explained that the retirement determination was
based on your three to five high year average salary,
multiplied by the number of years worked. He explained that
the multiplier for the first ten years is 2% per year. As
the bill is written, the PERS other benefit applies, which
only would go to the Peace Officers service, not the Peace
Officer benefit. After 20 years, a persons retirement
benefit would be 42.5%, 20% for the first ten years and
22.5% for the second ten years equaling the final average
salary and including the actuarial adjustment for the cost
of the benefit.
Mr. Bell continued that another portion of the question was
"Is one worth more than the other". The answer is yes, one
does cost more than the other. The additional 10 years of
benefits has a net present cost of a lot more than waiting
until 30 years. He did not know if it would be a livable
income.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that there were age restrictions
on the 30 year retirement plan, whereas, on the 20 year plan
there were none. Mr. Bell noted that the Tier I normal
retirement age is 55 years old, whether or not, there is a
20 or 30 year retirement. Many Peace Officers get to retire
before that age. Another consideration is the medical
benefit liability which applies to the Tier I employees that
were hired before July 1, 1986.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if people could receive retirement
with pay before 55 years old. Mr. Bell replied that they
could if. He stated that if you were a Peace Officer and
had 20 years of service, you could take a normal retirement
benefit. If you are a PERS "other" you would work 30 years
before you could take a normal retirement benefit. Co-Chair
Mulder clarified that a regular state employee would have to
wait until the age 55 or work for 30 years.
Representative Austerman advised that there is more than the
dollar amount being considered. He spoke to the amount of
stress related to this work.
Mr. Bell noted that the Department had not yet had an
opportunity to prepare a fiscal note to accompany the
current work draft version before the Committee. He stated
that the Department will show a zero fiscal note with this
legislation at this time.
Representative G. Davis noted that HB 159 had been included
with member's packets for review. He commented that it is
similar to HB 230 and that there would be no costs incurred
to the State or the municipalities.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 33, Side 2).
Representative G. Davis stated that the mechanism contained
in HB 159 speaks to the same stress level featured in HB
230. He invited Committee members to consider HB 159 as an
amendment to roll into HB 236.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that he had intended that HB 159
be heard at the Committee meeting but because of scheduling
complications, it had not been listed. He pointed out that
HB 159 has a $375 thousand dollar fiscal note. He noted
that he was not aware of the employee turnover and "burnout"
as exists in HB 230.
Representative G. Davis noted that he had not had time to
work on the concept of an amendment for HB 159.
Representative Austerman spoke in support of HB 236
acknowledging the stress associated with that work.
Representative G. Davis asked that the Committee consider
holding the bill until an amendment could be formalized.
Chair Therriault inquired regarding the fiscal for HB 159.
Mr. Bell stated that if HB 159 was included in HB 230, it
would have a similar non-fiscal impact. Effectively, the
burden would be carried totally by the employees. Co-Chair
Therriault stated that he had not heard that there was a
problem with the rate of turnover as associated with HB 230.
He noted that he supported HB 230 because of the problem
with retention of those employees.
Representative Austerman spoke against holding HB 159 for
further consolidation of the two bills. Co-Chair Therriault
agreed. He added that the Committee would need to hold HB
230 while waiting for the revised fiscal note, however that
should not take too long. He suggested that HB 159 could be
added as a possible floor amendment if Representative Kott
would support that consideration.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 230 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. Representative J. Davies pointed
out that at this time, there is no fiscal note. Co-Chair
Therriault commented that the bill could be moved, expecting
the zero fiscal note to come forthright to Committee.
Representative Williams interjected that he believed that HB
159 would fit into HB 230. Co-Chair Therriault noted that
he would schedule the HB 159 for the House Finance Committee
calendar next week. Representative Williams reiterated that
HB 159 could be amended to fit into HB 230.
Co-Chair Mulder suggested that incorporating HB 159 into HB
230 would slow the passage of HB 230.
Representative J. Davies OBJECTED to moving HB 230 from
Committee and then waiting for the fiscal note. He advised
that he objected to that procedural process. He recommended
moving the bill when the fiscal note arrives.
Co-Chair Mulder agreed that in most situations the bill and
fiscal note should be moved together whenever there is a
substantive change, however, he noted that there have been
no important changes to this bill. The Department has
informed the Committee that the fiscal note will be net
zero.
Representative J. Davies WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered and the
bill passed from Committee.
CS HB 236 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Administration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|