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