Legislature(2015 - 2016)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/26/2016 08:30 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| SB4002 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB4002 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB4002-INSURANCE FOR DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED FIRE/POLICE
8:31:30 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE announced the consideration of SB 4002. He
detailed that the bill was brought before the committee by the
administration.
He asked Commissioner Fisher to explain how SB 4002 became one
of the 11 bills that were on the special session's agenda.
8:32:03 AM
SHELDON FISHER, Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Administration, Juneau, Alaska, explained that SB 4002 would
provide peace officers and fire fighters that are killed in the
line of duty with coverage for their families and dependents. He
pointed out that there were gaps that the committee would have
to address as well as retirement-plan terms that do not provide
coverage. He said a number of high-profile peace officer deaths
over the past few years brought attention to gaps in the state's
current system. He revealed that an initial version of the bill
was introduced by Governor Parnell, but the bill's fiscal note
was quite high because all Alaska Public Employees' Retirement
(PERS) and Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) employees were
covered. He detailed that the bill's final version was submitted
as an amendment to SB 91, but the amendment was ultimately
pulled. He revealed that the governor's office heard from a
number of legislators that supported the bill being addressed in
the special session.
8:36:26 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked if the sponsor that asked the governor to
put it on the special session agenda was from the House.
COMMISSIONER FISHER replied that a number of legislators asked
the governor to put the bill on the special session's agenda.
CHAIR STOLTZE asserted that the committee was trying to get to
the bill's broader policy ramifications. He asked Commissioner
Fisher to provide guidance on the cautions and unintended
consequences that were discussed with the entire administration
when the legislation was developed to provide certainty of long-
term benefits.
COMMISSIONER FISHER specified that the benefit has been provided
by funding out of the Department of Public Safety's budget. He
said there was no assurance the benefit could continue on a
long-term basis and there was a desire to put the benefit in
statute.
He disclosed that questions have been asked whether the bill's
scope should be expanded or reduced. He noted that expanding the
bill could be problematic, particularly because the bill does
not cover Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO) and other
contracted officers. He added that the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) prohibits non-PERS participants from receiving benefits
from the PERS trust fund. He revealed that expanding the PERS
fund could endanger the entire fund where the state would risk
losing its tax-free status. He added that the Department of
Administration has looked at whether the bill covered all peace
officers and firefighters as well as state or municipal
employees.
He disclosed that one of the Department of Administration's
inputs addressed other jurisdictions that created special carve-
outs and narrowly defining benefit groups. He revealed that the
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) has
almost become unmanageable because of the breadth of carve-outs
that exist in each jurisdiction within the state. He said even
though SB 4002 may not be perfect, the bill was a balance that
appropriately focused on peace officers and firefighters with a
cost that was reasonable.
8:39:55 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE joined the committee meeting.
CHAIR STOLTZE added that the committee was going to ask for the
Department of Law's input as well. He asked Commissioner Fisher
to address his cautions and sideboards regarding the bill. He
noted that Commissioner Fisher had talked about expansion and
constriction. He asked what would happen if a public employee
union asked that grader operators responding to floods or first
responders to emergencies be covered by the benefit as well.
8:42:13 AM
COMMISSIONER FISHER replied that determining precisely who
should be covered was difficult. He agreed that other
occupations have dangers associated with them as well. He set
forth that there was a history of treating peace officers and
firefighters differently. He pointed out that the majority of
states offer similar benefit versions to SB 4002. He disclosed
that the feeling was the bill was the appropriate right step in
light of both the history and limitations that were available.
He opined that society sees a difference between a job like a
police officer and firefighter where confronting danger was
inherent in the job as opposed to other occupations where there
was a risk of accident. He summarized that he thought society
generally recognizes a different responsibility for the families
that are left behind.
CHAIR STOLTZE pointed out that correctional officers were as
much a part of the administration of justice as police officers.
8:45:03 AM
COMMISSIONER FISHER explained that the statutory definition of
"peace officer" did include correctional officers.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked that Commissioner Fisher provide a list of
who was covered.
COMMISSIONER FISHER detailed that the statutory definition of
peace officer and firefighter including the following:
· Police,
· Chief of police,
· Regional public safety officer,
· Correctional officers,
· Correctional superintendents,
· Firefighters,
· Fire chief.
8:46:13 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked that actuarial evidence be provided
regarding death rates to support the benefit's narrow category.
COMMISSIONER FISHER replied that he would get back to Senator
McGuire with the actuarial information.
SENATOR HUGGINS noted that Commissioner Fisher mentioned that a
majority of states had a similar provision to SB 4002. He asked
Commissioner Fisher to provide information on the other states'
techniques in approaching the challenge. He asked if
consideration was given for a group program where a dollar or
two a month was contributed towards a death-benefit pool. He
pointed out that the state's unfunded liability was $7.5 billion
and the Legislature has to be careful in taking on more debt.
He called attention to Buck Consultants' letter that said,
"Small variations and these approximations and estimates may
lead to significant changes in actual measurements." He asked
what Buck's letter meant and asked if Buck's statement was a way
of saying, "We don't know what's going on."
8:49:56 AM
COMMISSIONER FISHER replied that the sentence Senator Huggins
referred to was standard language that Buck's analysis was based
on the best knowledge they have today. He explained that Buck
Consultants looks backwards in order to forecast what is going
to happen in the future, but analysis may be overstated or
understated depending on future changes; for example, mortality
rates or medical costs may be higher. He opined that no one can
precisely predict the future.
SENATOR HUGGINS remarked that the state's unfunded liability was
due to organizations like Buck Consultants getting it wrong. He
asked Commissioner Fisher to review Buck Consultants' analysis.
COMMISSIONER FISHER surmised that the unfunded liability arose
from both actuarial errors and the dramatic decline in the
market that reduced the asset's value. He said Senator Huggins
was correct where a set of assumptions at a given time were
thought to be reasonable that turned out to be incorrect and the
state was left with a substantial unfunded liability.
8:52:40 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Commissioner Fisher to clarify that heath-
care costs were calculated in the $7.5 billion unfunded
liability.
COMMISSIONER FISHER answered yes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked Commissioner Fisher if the fiscal
note from Buck Consultants' report predicts how many officers
and firefighters will die in the line of duty as well as the age
of spouses, the number of dependents, and how long insurance
will be collected.
COMMISSIONER FISHER answered yes. He said the actuarial analysis
takes the factors Senator Wielechowski noted as well as the cost
of delivering the benefit.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI remarked that variables could include a
dramatic increase in: insurance costs, additional children being
born, marriages, or people dying in the line of duty.
COMMISSIONER FISHER answered yes. He added that the variables
Senator Wielechowski pointed out could decrease as well.
8:54:46 AM
JOHN BOUCHER, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Administration, Juneau, Alaska, pointed out that given the size
of the pool, a large tragic event would be another variable.
CHAIR STOLTZE commented that the committee was making sure that
all of the bill's ramifications were known prior to passing any
retirement change. He remarked that the state was in a lot of
trouble due to retirement issues. He opined that other
bargaining units might make an effort to get comparable
benefits. He said the question remained whether or not the bill
could stand when only being applied to a small group.
8:56:44 AM
COMMISSIONER FISHER reiterated that he believed that there was a
public sense that police and firefighters are different. He
pointed out that many states treated police and firefighters
differently.
He stated that there were two ways an employee group may request
additional coverage: negotiation where similar benefits are
demanded or a legal claim that the benefit group is too narrow.
COMMISSIONER FISHER disclosed that he had a conversation with
the Department of Law regarding a legal claim. He said he felt
comfortable that the legislation would successfully withstand a
legal claim.
8:58:47 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Commissioner Fisher if he had a higher level
of confidence through the bargaining process or the court
process.
COMMISSIONER FISHER answered that he felt confident in both
processes.
CHAIR STOLTZE commented that he questioned confidence in
predicting the court process.
COMMISSIONER FISHER replied that he was relying on the state's
experts.
SENATOR COGHILL stated that he would be interested to hear from
the Department of Law regarding a possible legal claim. He asked
if the cost of a legal claim would be borne by the trust fund.
COMMISSIONER FISHER answered that the cost would be borne by the
employers, but pointed out that the previously noted cap would
require additional state assistance.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that the thought a PERS-system trust
paying out a narrow benefit would result in a higher potential
for litigation. He asked Commissioner Fisher to confirm that
payment would come out of the general fund.
9:01:05 AM
COMMISSIONER FISHER explained that the Department of
Administration works each year with the actuaries in the Alaska
Retirement Management (ARM) Board to define a cost for the
benefits that are delivered and those costs are allocated to
each employer. He pointed out that because employers are already
capped in their contribution rate, increase in essence would
fall to the state. He added that the rate noted in the fiscal
note was the actuarial estimate of the additional cost necessary
to fund the trust fund to pay for the benefits.
CHAIR STOLTZE remarked that asking if the payments would come
out of the general fund was too limiting. He asserted that the
current discussion addressed the broader-pension obligations
which involve the general fund, permanent fund earnings reserve,
constitutional budget reserve, and the dividend which is a
derivative of the permanent fund earnings reserve.
SENATOR COGHILL specified that he was addressing the litigation
part if the trust fund was going to bear the responsibility. He
opined that all of the other people who contribute to the fund
would feel that the proposed legislation was too narrow.
9:03:37 AM
MR. BOUCHER remarked that the state may be subjecting itself to
additional litigation, however; there was a long history within
the PERS trust funds of peace officers and firefighters having
slightly different benefits than all other employees.
SENATOR COGHILL stated that he appreciated Mr. Boucher's remarks
for getting at the heart of his question regarding specific law
previously made for retirement benefits. He said his concern was
that the legislation does not become "flypaper for litigation."
CHAIR STOLTZE said the larger issue pertained to the Legislature
going through a lot of pain trying to get a handle on the
retirement system. He stated that in spite of everybody's
empathy for trying to take care of the problem that the
legislation addresses, there was a caution anytime a retirement
issue was opened up. He specified that the issue was much
broader than the two people or the two families.
9:05:39 AM
SENATOR COGHILL asked Commissioner Fisher to confirm that SB
4002 would be retroactive to 2013. He inquired how many families
would be picked up by the bill.
COMMISSIONER FISHER stated that three families would be captured
from 2013 to present.
SENATOR COGHILL asked Commissioner Fisher to confirm that the
bill would say being retired was not a requirement and the death
benefit would go to health care upon the unfortunate death of
the police officer or the firefighter.
COMMISSIONER FISHER explained that the benefit would depend on
the person's Defined Contribution Plan (DCR) tier. He detailed
that upon the death of the peace officer or firefighter killed
in the line of duty, all surviving spouses and dependents would
be eligible for premium-free health benefits; however, spouses
and dependents for a DCR Plan Tier IV would receive 100 percent
premium subsidy until an individual becomes Medicare eligible
and would then pay the portion of the premium as if there had
been no death event.
9:08:54 AM
SENATOR COGHILL asked Commissioner Fisher to clarify benefits
for the Tier-IV recipients.
COMMISSIONER FISHER reiterated that once a person becomes
Medicare eligible, the person would pay their portion of the
cost as if there had been no death.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the state would pay the premium for a
Tier IV recipient until Medicare eligibility.
COMMISSIONER FISHER answered yes.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the state would cover 100 percent of
the benefit.
COMMISSIONER FISHER answered yes. He added that under the DCR
Plan, members are required to retire directly from the plan and
SB 4002 removes that requirement. He said SB 4002 would also
extend the benefit to dependents in the event there was no
surviving spouse.
SENATOR COGHILL asked Commissioner Fisher what he meant by,
"Members are required to retire directly from the plan."
COMMISSIONER FISHER explained that an example would be a person
with five years of service and Tier IV status was killed in the
line of duty. He pointed out that there is no opportunity to
retire directly from the plan because statutorily a Tier IV
person must have 25 years of service and have worked the prior
12 months. He pointed out that in the case of an individual
dying prior to reaching the statutorial parameters, retiring was
technically impossible. He specified that SB 4002 made a
technical change that allows the benefit to be provided.
9:11:43 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE pointed out that Commissioner Fisher remarked
about Alaska coming into conformance with other states. He asked
that Commissioner Fisher provide further details.
COMMISSIONER FISHER clarified that he did not mean to say that
every state does exactly what SB 4002 proposes. He specified
that other states provide some form of benefit that varies. He
reiterated that there was a broad recognition in the public that
peace officers and firefighters merit a heightened level of
benefit in the event of occupational death. He said he would
provide the committee with details regarding what other states
have done.
CHAIR STOLTZE specified that his question was meant to clarify
for the public.
SENATOR COGHILL asked what would occur if a surviving spouse
remarried.
MR. BOUCHER answered that the status of the benefit does not
change until the surviving spouse becomes Medicare-age eligible.
9:14:45 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE stated that she generally supported the concept
for SB 4002 and felt that peace officers were different when
asked to do the things we do not want to do. She said she would
like the Legislature to explore the notion of zero percent
contribution and noted three different suggestions:
· Beneficiary pays a percentage by adding "skin in the game,"
· Graduated benefit over a specific time period,
· Ability to pay.
She summarized that she gets the principal and understands the
idea of recognizing the service of individuals. She asserted
that the questions were not meant to be disrespectful. She said
considering where Alaskans can partner was important because the
state was not in the position to give all and do all anymore or
in the foreseeable future.
9:19:16 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked what the responsibility would be for a
municipality if one of its police officers was killed in the
line of duty.
COMMISSIONER FISHER replied that the bill as defined
contemplates that there would be an increase in the employer
contributions. He said theoretically the employer would pick up
the cost, but the employer contribution is capped so the state
would pay for the additional contribution.
MR. BOUCHER suggested that the peace officers and firefighters
be thought of as a group in a kind of "benefit pool" for all the
employers that are involved so a specific municipality would not
bear the sole burden, the benefit contribution would be shared
across all of the participating employers.
9:21:30 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS said he would be interested to see what Alaska
does versus other states. He asserted that the bill addresses a
tragic situation, but noted his disappointment that more
spending was requested when the state has a $4 billion deficit.
He noted that the governor expanded Medicaid and asked
Commissioner Fisher if the governor had the authority to do the
same for the proposed benefit.
9:25:34 AM
COMMISSIONER FISHER responded that he did not know.
SENATOR HUGGINS stated that his question deserves an answer
regarding whether the governor has the authority.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asserted that he had a different
perspective than some others in the committee. He admitted that
the fiscal note was not insignificant at $174,000 for FY17 with
an increase a few years later to over a couple of hundred
thousand dollars; however, when reviewing the capital budget,
the Legislature was spending money on new legislative offices
and $1.5 million on new security for the capitol. He stated that
the priority order of things in his mind was that there was
nothing more important than providing health care for deceased
spouses and dependent kids of firefighters and police officers.
He affirmed that firefighters and police officers were giving
enough "skin in the game" by giving their lives to protect the
state. He stated that he supported SB 4002.
CHAIR STOLTZE replied that he did not think Senator
Wielechowski's stated philosophy was different from other
committee members. He asserted that the committee was looking at
the unforeseen ramification.
SENATOR HUGGINS stated that he hoped that he prefaced his
comments about the committee's concern about the victims. He
pointed out that he was one of the guys that went around the
world and put his life on the line.
9:27:53 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE said she did not appreciate Senator
Wielechowski's remark. She expressed that it would be easy for
the committee to say, "Just fund it." She voiced that all
committee members felt tremendous empathy for the survivors of
those who have been killed in any circumstances, but certainly
in the line of duty. She set forth that the state was in a
situation where everything was reevaluated as how to mitigate
costs and move forward in the future. She remarked that
reevaluating was not inappropriate and reevaluating a new cost
would be a violation of the committee members' oath to the
constitution. She specified that reevaluating was the point of
"skin in the game" and her remark was not meant to imply that
the ultimate sacrifice was not given. She admitted that a
circumstance like insurance for dependents when presented to
committee members has tremendous emotion behind it. She asserted
that being in the majority and leading was always more difficult
than just making remarks in the minority.
9:30:03 AM
MR. BOUCHER announced that Larry Langer and Melissa Bissett from
Buck Consultants were online to address the committee. He asked
Mr. Langer and Ms. Bissett to address the Buck Consulting letter
submitted to the committee as well as speaking to some of the
comments the committee posed relating to risks of assumption.
9:32:40 AM
LARRY LANGER, Principal Consulting Actuary, Buck Consultants,
Chicago, Illinois, announced that he was available to address
the risk element associated with SB 4002.
9:33:23 AM
MELISSA BISSETT, Senior Consultant, Health Care Actuary, Buck
Consultants, Denver, Colorado, announced that she would provide
an overview of the letter she wrote, the work Buck Consultants
did and the items considered in preparing the fiscal note.
She stated that Buck Consultants' understanding has always been
to investigate the impact of potentially providing free medical
care to survivors of peace officer and firefighter employees who
die in the line of duty. She detailed that Bucks Consultants
identified the people and changed the evaluation to reflect no
contribution requirements that were dependent on eligibility.
She specified that the bigger impact was on the Tier IV group
that had to pay 100 percent of the premium for a potentially
longer period. She added that medical-care benefits were also
extended to Tier II and Tier III participants that may have been
required to pay premiums prior to age 60. She detailed that Buck
Consultants changed all of the evaluation parameters to remove
the premium subsidy as well as when Medicare eligibility kicks
in for a Tier IV spouse. She added that retroactivity back to
January 2013 was also taken into consideration. She summarized
that results between the original-draft valuation and the impact
from removing the premium requirements was also addressed.
MS. BISSETT addressed the committee's previous question
regarding what would happen if a survivor remarries or becomes
employed with primary coverage, the plan would pay secondary in
those cases. She detailed that the secondary-coverage scenario
was a minor adjustment to what was initially projected as far as
increasing costs.
She summarized that the results would impact the unfunded
liability by $557,000 and be split between PERS and the DCR
Plan.
9:36:51 AM
MR. BOUCHER asked Ms. Bissett to readdress the scenario where
the plan becomes secondary.
MS. BISSETT reiterated that the state plan would become
secondary only where a surviving spouse remarries or becomes
employed and has another source of primary coverage that he or
she elects.
MR. BOUCHER expressed that Ms. Bissett's statement was counter
to what he had said earlier. He asked Ms. Bissett to confirm
that the cost of the plan would potentially increase if the plan
was primary in the instance that she described.
MS. BISSETT answered correct.
COMMISSIONER FISHER clarified that Mr. Boucher's statement
regarding the plan's impact of a surviving spouse remarrying was
not counter to Ms. Bissett's statement. He specified that the
plan does not change the legal right for an individual to
receive the benefit after remarrying. He explained that the
analysis assumed a percentage of people either take a job or
change their marital status which provides access to another
plan. He said Buck Consultants' assumption was that the state
plan would be secondary to the other plan that ultimately
reduces the forecasted cost.
MS. BISSETT concurred with Commissioner Fisher and noted that
the results were reflected in Buck's report. She reiterated that
the impact on the unfunded liability was an additional $557,000.
She summarized the assumptions considered as follows:
· Health care cost trends,
· Chance of someone being killed in the line of duty,
· Effects of aging where people cost more, especially in the
few years prior to Medicare eligibility.
9:39:55 AM
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that because the state was small, the
retroactivity in picking up two versus three families was a
significant actuarial change on looking forward. He asked how
far Buck Consultants looked back.
MS. BISSETT answered that the fiscal note went back two years.
COMMISSIONER FISHER asked how far Buck Consultants went back to
establish historical trend analysis regarding medical, mortality
and other trends for forecasting. He assumed that Buck
Consultants went back further than two years to calculate trends
to forecast into the future.
9:41:44 AM
MS. BISSETT answered correct. She detailed that Buck looked back
at least four years to set health-care cost trends.
COMMISSIONER FISHER asked Ms. Bissett to address mortality
trends.
MS. BISSETT replied that mortality trends were based on an
experience study that was completed and adopted in 2014. She
noted that mortality rates were improving.
SENATOR COGHILL expressed that having police officers deal with
circumstances due to what the state was facing was unfortunate.
He pointed out that state has paid death benefits to survivors
outside of health-care benefits for many years. He asked Ms.
Bissett if Buck Consultants looked back and established a trend
line based on the benefits that have been paid to survivors.
9:44:25 AM
MS. BISSETT asked Senator Coghill to clarify that he was
wondering about the basis for the mortality assumption.
COMMISSIONER FISHER explained that Senator Coghill was
specifically addressing the historical "killed in the line of
duty" category rather than overall mortality to calculate the
assumption.
SENATOR COGHILL stated that Commissioner Fisher's assumption was
correct.
MS. BISSETT reiterated that Buck Consultants did an experience
study on group-specific mortality in 2014. She noted that Buck
Consultants looked at Alaska-specific experiences dating back
five years or more in addition to industry information. She
specified that there was a difference between occupational
deaths and mortality rates.
CHAIR STOLTZE recalled that the Legislature passed the
presumptive-cost bill that was limited to firefighters and first
responders. He asked if the stand-alone provision would impact
SB 4002.
9:46:57 AM
MR. BOUCHER answered that he did not see a connection.
CHAIR STOLTZE asserted that the committee's intent was not to
inadvertently diminish or make unintended changes just for the
purposes of being careful. He stated that the committee's
overall concern has not been the cost of the three
beneficiaries, but for the long term ramifications. He said he
understood the real-people connection and empathy as well as
anybody, but the committee wants to vet SB 4002.
SENATOR HUGGINS noted "Obamacare" and asked if subsidizing
beneficiaries would be feasible for health care insurance.
9:49:47 AM
COMMISSIONER FISHER replied that theoretically the state could
contemplate going onto the "exchange" to by coverage for the
families, but the insurance cost was so high in Alaska that the
cost to the state would be substantially more. He specified that
the cost of insuring the "pool" in which the people currently
reside in was substantially less than the cost of buying a
comparable insurance policy on the "exchange."
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Commissioner Fisher to verify if the
Obamacare approach would be more costly.
COMMISSIONER FISHER replied that he believed so.
9:50:51 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE disclosed that during the wake of Obamacare, she
had an idea as part of a permanent-fund restructure to add a
provision that allowed Alaskans to "check off" part of their
dividend to become part of a state pool for either health care,
retirement or long-term care. She encouraged Commissioner Fisher
to have Buck Consultants analyze where a state pool's volumetric
numbers could leverage lower rates for Alaskans.
SENATOR MCGUIRE revealed that the reason why she brought up the
idea for a state-pool fund was due to the "stratification" of
those that receive good benefits and those that do not. She
opined that very few Alaskans would have complained about SB
4002 if the bill was considered when oil prices and production
were higher. She said the optics for everything have been
altered due to the state's economic changes.
9:55:22 AM
COMMISSIONER FISHER explained that the majority of the increased
cost of providing insurance on the exchange was due to high-cost
claimants.
SENATOR MCGUIRE clarified that her previous statement referred
to a broader point about Alaskan looking for insurance but were
relegated to the higher-cost exchange. She opined that the only
people in the exchange where those with preexisting conditions.
COMMISSIONER FISHER replied that he agreed with the trend that
Senator McGuire pointed out and stated that the Department of
Administration shared the same concern. He opined that state
worker versus private sector benefits was probably beyond the
scope of the day's hearing to dig into the "broad scope." He set
forth that the administration and Legislature has attempted to
narrow the focus on a group of individuals and be reasonable in
light of all of the balancing issues that the committee raised.
9:58:16 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE reiterated that she agreed with the bill, but
specified that her broader point addressed average Alaskans
having access to health care, long-term care and retirement. She
challenged Commissioner Fisher to not just deal with the issues
before him, but to give broader consideration of what types of
opportunities there might be to expand the volume of Alaskans
that get access to benefits.
9:59:40 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE held SB 4002 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 4002 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 5/26/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB4002 |
| SB 4002 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SSTA 5/26/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB4002 |
| SB 4002 - Presentation by Dept. of Administration 5.26.16.pdf |
SSTA 5/26/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB4002 |
| SB4002 - Actuarial Letter 5.24.16.pdf |
SSTA 5/26/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB4002 |
| SB4002 - Fiscal Note-DOA-OOC-05-23-16.pdf |
SSTA 5/26/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB4002 |
| SB4002 - Fiscal Note -DOA-PERS-05-24-16.pdf |
SSTA 5/26/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB4002 |
| SB 4002 Supporting Documents - DOA Responses.6.2.16.pdf |
SSTA 5/26/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB4002 |
| SB 4002 Supporting Documents - Occupational Deaths, SOA+PoliSubs. 6.1.16.pdf |
SSTA 5/26/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB4002 |
| SB 4002 Supporting Documents - PERS, TRS Benefit information.pdf |
SSTA 5/26/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB4002 |
| SB 4002 - APDEA Support Letter.pdf |
SSTA 5/26/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB4002 |
| SB 4002 - ACOA Support Letter.pdf |
SSTA 5/26/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB4002 |
| SB 4002 - APOA Support Letter.pdf |
SSTA 5/26/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB4002 |