Legislature(2021 - 2022)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/04/2022 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| HB55 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 55-PEACE OFFICER/FIREFIGHTER RETIRE BENEFITS
1:58:05 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 55(FIN) "An Act relating
to participation of certain peace officers and firefighters in
the defined benefit and defined contribution plans of the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Alaska; relating to eligibility
of peace officers and firefighters for medical, disability, and
death benefits; relating to liability of the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Alaska; and providing for an effective
date."
CHAIR COSTELLO asked Mr. Kershner and Mr. Young to brief the
committee on the updated fiscal note for HB 55.
1:58:43 PM
DAVID KERSHNER, FSA, EA, MAAA, FCA, Principal and Consulting
Actuary, Buck Global LLC., Estero, Florida, stated that he was
the lead retirement actuary for the State of Alaska, Division of
Retirement and Benefits (DRB) retirement systems. He introduced
Scott Young as the lead health actuary for the work Buck does
for DRB. He advised that he and Mr. Young would discuss the
updated fiscal note cost analysis for HB 55, all of which is
covered in the letter dated March 4, 2022.
MR. KERSHNER said there are three basic differences between the
2021 fiscal note and the 2022 update, but the analysis did not
change. The first difference reflects the change in actuarial
valuations resulting from changes in the participant data
between 2020 and 2021.
The second difference is that last year's analysis did not
reflect SB 55, which changed the way the state-as-an-employer
makes contributions to the PERS trusts. That bill went into
effect July 1 2021. The updated analysis reflects both the
additional state contributions and the state-as-an-employer
contributions.
The third difference reflects the change in the effective date
of HB 55 from 7/1/2021 to 7/1/2022.
2:01:50 PM
MR. KERSHNER said that under both analyses, Buck is projecting
increases to the state contributions to PERS. The reason is that
HB 55 gives the current active members in the DCR Plan for peace
officers and fire fighters a one-time election to stay in the
Defined Contribution Retirement (DCR) plan or switch to the HB
55 Defined Benefit (DB) plan. Additionally, under HB 55 all
future peace officer and firefighter hires will enter the
Defined Benefit Plan rather than the Defined Contribution Plan.
Because the participants are projected to shift from the DCR
Plan to the DB Plan, there will be a shift in contributions as
well as the new allocation of those contributions.
2:03:58 PM
MR. KERSHNER said the table on page 2 of the March 4, 2022
letter summarizes the increases in the additional state
contributions as well as the state-as-an-employer contributions
to PERS for FY23 through FY28. The pie charts show the current
distribution of the 22 percent of pay employer contributions and
the distribution under HB 55.
The pie chart on the left shows that PERS employers currently
contribute five percent of employee pay to the Defined
Contribution Accounts; three percent (green) to employee Health
Reimbursement Accounts (HRA); 1.5 percent (yellow) to the DCR
Trust for occupational death and disability benefits and retiree
health care benefits; and 12.5 percent to the Defined Benefit
Trust to help pay down the unfunded liability in that plan.
2:06:17 PM
MR. KERSHNER directed attention to the pie chart on the right
that shows the distribution of the 22 percent employer
contributions, should HB 55 become law. The three percent of pay
contribution employers make to HRAs on behalf of peace/fire
members affected by HB 55 is shown in green; the minimum nine
percent that will be contributed to the HB 55 Trust that is
proposed to be set up within the Defined Benefit Trust is shown
in yellow; and the ten percent that will be distributed to the
Defined Benefit Trust is shown in orange. Employers are still
contributing 22 percent, but the state will have to make up the
2.5 percent shortfall between the 12.5 percent that is currently
being deposited to the DB Trust to pay down the unfunded
liability and the 10 percent that will be deposited to that
account should HB 55 pass.
MR. KERSHNER stated that the increases in the state-as-an-
employer contributions are due to a couple of things. First,
under SB 55 the state-as-an-employer contributes the full
actuarial contribution rate to both the DB Trust and DCR Trust.
Under HB 55, those contribution rates are projected to increase
slightly because retention rates are expected to rise when
employees have the opportunity to receive a defined benefit
pension. In sum, employee retention is expected to be higher
after HB 55 than before, so projected payroll is expected to be
higher. Because the dollar amounts are the contribution rate
times the projected payroll, that leads to the higher state-as-
an-employer contributions, as shown on page 2.
2:11:10 PM
MR. KERSHNER explained that two mitigating provisions are built
into HB 55. One is that the ARM Board can increase the member
contribution rates from eight percent of pay up to 12 percent of
pay. The other is that the ARM Board can also reduce the Post
Retirement Pension Adjustment (PRPA) benefits, which are linked
to changes in the consumer price index (CPI).
Under the provisions of HB 55, the ARM Board can reduce PRPA
benefits if the status of the HB 55 Trust falls below 90
percent. The trust will be nearly 100 percent funded with the
transfer of assets under the proposed bill, and it is expected
to remain funded well above 90 percent if it earns according to
the assumptions the ARM Board has adopted. Because of that
projection, the Buck cost analysis did not reflect any reduction
in PRPA benefits. Similarly, the analysis did not assume any
increases to the eight percent member contributions. That is an
action the ARM Board would have to take because unlike the PRPA,
there is no threshold under which member contributions would be
increased automatically.
2:13:54 PM
MR. KERSHNER clarified that HB 55 does not offer these new DB
members the ten percent Alaska residency cost of living
allowance (COLA) that retired PERS members who continue to
reside in Alaska currently receive. The only COLA that HB 55
members would receive is PRPA.
MR. KERSHNER offered to answer questions about the updated cost
analysis.
2:14:49 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO referenced page 5 of the letter and noted that
708 peace and fire employees don't have the ability to transfer
all their existing service in the DCR plan to the DB plan, so
they would be indebted to the state. She asked what would happen
to those individuals if HB 55 were to pass and they opted to
change to the DB plan.
MR. KERSHNER explained that at the time of the analysis those
708 employees did not have sufficient funds in their defined
contribution accounts to purchase all the service they have
under the DCR plan. The assumption was that they would transfer
the entire DCR account and assume an indebtedness for the
remainder that would need to be paid down according to the
indebtedness rules governing all PERS members. The analysis did
not assume that any of those members would purchase the
additional service outright because, on an actuarial basis,
there is no net effect in doing so.
2:18:28 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO asked why HB 55 assumes a 7.38 percent return on
investment when the ARM Board projects a 6.6 percent return over
the next decade.
2:19:12 PM
SENATOR STEVENS joined the committee.
MR. KERSHNER replied he didn't know the basis for the 6.6
percent return, but the Buck analysis assumed a return of 7.38
percent because that is the rate the ARM Board adopted in 2019,
based on the 2017 experience study. Changing expectations in the
capital market caused the return rate to drop from eight percent
to 7.38 percent. Buck is currently in the middle of the next
experience study that is conducted once every four years and the
new assumptions will become effective with the 2022 valuations.
CHAIR COSTELLO asked if Buck's March 4, 2022 letter satisfied
the statutory requirement for an actuarial report on any bill of
this nature.
MR. KERSHNER answered that it does.
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that the drop four years ago from
eight percent to 7.38 percent was fairly significant. He asked
what would cause that sort of reduction from one experience
study to the next.
MR. KERSHNER said the general explanation is that capital market
expectations and asset allocations change over time and those
changes are reflected when a new actuarial experience study is
done every four years. The ARM Board sets new assumptions at
that time based on the new expectations. The eight percent
return assumption was set in 2014 and was based on the 2013
experience study. The expected equity returns in 2018 were lower
in general than they were in 2014 and the ARM Board adopted the
7.38 percent return assumption at that time, based on the latest
experience study. Four years from now there will be new
expectations
2:25:41 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE calculated that the drop from eight percent to
7.38 was .62 percent. He asked how the HB 55 DB plan would be
affected if the next experience study resulted in another .62
percent drop in expected returns.
MR. KERSHNER replied that the liabilities in the plan increase
whenever the assumed return is decreased. For example, more
money needs to be set aside today to pay a $1,000 benefit in
five years if the expected return is 7.38 percent, as opposed to
eight percent. He noted that if Buck had done the analysis using
a 6.5 percent return instead of 7.38 percent, all the
contribution numbers pre-HB 55 would be higher than what is
currently projected, but the difference pre- and post-HB 55
should be relatively similar.
MR. KERSHNER reminded the committee that one of the motivating
factors in the 2006 decision to close the defined benefit plans
to future hires was to reduce some of the risk the state bears
in having defined benefit pensions promised to retirees. He
pointed out that the first page of the March 4, 2022 letter
states that by opening the DB plan to peace officers and fire
fighters, the state will take on more risk because the DB plan
will continue to get larger as opposed to the current situation
where it is projected to reach an apex then get smaller and
smaller as the covered population retires, leaves state
employment without a retirement benefit, or dies. Reopening the
DB plan to peace officers and fire fighters increases the risk
to the state. He acknowledged that some of the risk is mitigated
by the levers the ARM Board can control, but the risk cannot be
eliminated entirely.
2:32:10 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE questioned whether the existing liabilities
would actually grow as Mr. Kershner indicated, or just shrink
more slowly.
MR. KERSHNER stated that without HB 55, the liabilities of the
current defined benefit plan are expected to continue to
increase for a certain period of time. After that the active
population will get smaller because there are no new hires and
some employees will retire, some will leave employment without a
retirement benefit, and some people will die before retirement.
Ultimately, the assets in the plan will be depleted once the
benefit is paid to the last retiree.
By contrast, HB 55 opens the defined benefit plan to peace
officers and fire fighters so that portion of the plan's
population will continue to grow. It is also expected to be more
stable because of the defined benefit, so that portion of the
plan's liabilities will not peak and then decline as in the
current situation.
2:35:55 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he would like to see a graph that shows
how adding a small subset of state employees to the DB plan will
affect the overall unfunded liability of the state over time.
2:37:01 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON pointed out that not only does HB 55 not
offer the ten percent COLA for retirees who remain in Alaska, it
also sets the minimum age of 55 to collect the retirement
benefit and it does not offer a Cadillac health care plan. She
noted the current difficulties associated with retaining police
officers and fire fighters and asked if he expects HB 55 to help
with that.
MR. KERSHNER said he didn't know the particulars but the general
expectation is that the defined contribution plan workforce is
more mobile and those workers typically take their defined
contribution account balance when they move. By comparison,
defined benefit plans provide incentives for people to stay and
ultimately receive the lifetime defined benefit pension.
MR. KERSHNER continued to explain that Buck's ongoing actuarial
valuations make assumptions about all future events, one of
which is the withdrawal assumption. That is that a certain
percentage of people at various ages will terminate employment
during the year. A comparison of the withdrawal rates for the
two plans shows that the withdrawal rates for the defined
benefit plan are lower because of that assumed decreased
mobility. He said the expectation is that the retention rate for
members in a defined benefit plan is higher, but he did not have
the details to know how that translates to the actual experience
for the state.
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON pointed out that both the state and the
Municipality of Anchorage were having problems with retention of
police officers and fire fighters. She also asked for a brief
explanation of how raising employee contributions and
withholding inflation adjustments from retirees will reduce the
risk for the state.
MR. KERSHNER answered that if the ARM Board were to raise the
member contributions, less money would be required from the
participating employers and the state. For example, if the
member contributions were increased from 8 percent to 10
percent, those contributions would fund a larger portion of the
pension benefit liabilities.
CHAIR COSTELLO thanked Mr. Kershner and suggested that if the
members had more questions they could submit them in writing to
her office.
2:42:17 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO listed the individuals waiting to comment on the
report and the bill. She turned first to William Fornia and
asked him to summarize the PowerPoint he provided.
2:42:59 PM
WILLIAM FORNIA, President, Pension Trustee Advisors (PTI), Inc.
and Actuary for Firefighters Association, Greenwood Village,
Colorado, began his presentation by pointing to slides 2 and 3
that provide his credentials and a sample of his work history,
including his work with the State of Alaska starting in 2005.
MR. FORNIA stated that slide 5 illustrates the necessity of HB
55. The chart of the hypothetical benefits for Tier III defined
benefit (DB) retirement versus Tier IV defined contribution (DC)
retirement for police/fire employees whose final average salary
was $80,000 demonstrates that the Tier III DB retirement is
dramatically higher than the Tier IV DC benefit and only
marginally higher than Social Security.
2:46:08 PM
MR. FORNIA skipped to slide 7 that lists the actuarial
implications of HB 55. The slide read as follows:
• Buck Fiscal note shows modest cost
• Risk to State is "Adverse Plan Experience"
• HB 55 Plan has Safeguards to mitigate this risk
• We have performed simulations to analyze this
risk
MR. FORNIA mentioned Senator Micciche's question about
liabilities going up and clarified that he likely was talking
about unfunded liabilities, which are deliberately designed not
to go up. He directed attention to slide 8 that talks about how
HB 55 strikes a compromise. It read as follows:
• Start with 12 percent fixed employer contribution
and manage plan within that target as possible
• Design current target benefit levels
Consider benefits provided by DCR and latest DB
• Build in benefit and/or employee contribution
adjustment mechanisms
• These provide cushion against adverse experience
MR. FORNIA said the plan is targeted to be 114 percent funded
but if the actuaries are wrong and the return isn't 7.38
percent, the following safeguards would provide a leaner Tier
III:
Safeguard 1: Reduce benefits for the new Tier III DB employees
• Minimum eligibility to qualify for the benefit is age 55
• Benefit is based on five-year average salary, not three
years
• Eliminates the 10 percent Alaska residency COLA
• Suspend Post-Retirement Pension Adjustment when the fund is
not sufficiently funded
• Increase employee and employer contributions up to 2
percent each if the trust is not sufficiently funded
- This was amended to permit the employee contribution to
increase up to 4 percent
Safeguard 2: Actuarial Margins
• Build in margin in actuarial assumptions.
• Build reserves in good times to provide added funding
during bad times
• Compare 12 percent + 8 percent = 20 percent contributions
with costs above
- 16.35 percent cost for pension based on 7.00 percent
returns
- HRA & Medicare Supplement are another 2.92 percent
- This provides a cushion of 0.73 percent
- Additional 8.04 percent available through PRPA
suspension and additional 4 percent + 2 percent
employee and employer contributions
Safeguard 3: Reduced Discount Rate
• Target the pension and health care benefits to be equal to
latest tier DB
• Determine the costs based on 7 percent discount rate rather
than 7.38 percent assumed by PERS actuary
• Seek additional funding for this level, and then commit to
this fixed employer contribution rate going forward
This is 12% employer contribution for Police and Fire
employers
• Monitor experience and adjust benefits and/or contributions
as necessary going forward
2:49:21 PM
MR. FORNIA turned to slide 12 and discussed the concept of
threshold testing. He pointed out that the Buck analysis used
the 7.38 percent annual return that the Alaska Retirement
Management (ARM) Board had adopted and that Pension Trustee
Advisors (PTI) built its HB 55 plan around a 7.00 percent annual
return. PTI's stress testing demonstrated that an annual return
of 6.62 percent was the threshold to avoid the plan falling
below 90 percent funded for 50 years. To maintain that
threshold, increases in employee contributions would be
triggered if the annual return was 6.49 percent, and the Post
Retirement Pension Adjustment would be suspended if the annual
return dropped to 5.43 percent.
2:50:36 PM
MR. FORNIA directed attention to slide 13 and explained that PTI
ran simulations to look at how the funding level would fare
under various returns. He noted that the 6.6 percent return
Chair Costello asked about probably came from an ARM Board
investment consultant who in 2019 projected that return for the
next ten years. Observing that the projection was wrong, he said
PTI nevertheless tried to test what would happen in that
scenario. He pointed to the graph on slide 15 and explained that
they looked at the years since inception and took the worst 20
year period, which was 2000 to 2020. He pointed to the gray
line.
The stochastic plan simulations that model possible future
returns start on slide 16, using some of what the ARM Board uses
for their projected volatilities.
2:52:41 PM
MR. FORNIA skipped to the bar graph on slide 19 and explained
that after running 10,000 simulations they determined that after
20 years, there is a 23 percent chance that the plan would be 90
percent funded or below and a 23 percent chance the plan would
be 149 percent funded, or above. The key is to aim high, and
that's what the chart on slide 19 shows. The plan is very likely
to be 110 percent plus funded and reasonably likely to be 149
percent plus funded. He directed attention to the wedges on the
last bar that show that the bottom isn't that bad. The reason is
there's the ability to suspend the PRPA and increase the
employee contributions. The plan was designed as much as
possible to build in safeguards.
He noted that the presentation included some examples from other
states but in the interest of time he would take questions.
CHAIR COSTELLO advised that the committee would hold their
questions to hear from the remaining individuals waiting to
provide testimony.
2:55:07 PM
RYAN FROST, Policy Analyst, Pension Integrity Project, Reason
Foundation, Los Angeles, California, stated that he is the
senior research and policy manager for the law enforcement
officers and firefighters pension system in Washington State. He
highlighted that the plan has been one of the top three best
funded plans since its inception in the 1970s, primarily because
it has kept up to date with best practices in pension planning
and funding design. He reported that his pension team has played
a key, pro bono, technical assistance role on 55 pension reform
bills in the last six years. The pension reforms they have
worked on include the new defined benefit pension tiers, new
hybrid design tiers, cash balance tiers, and new defined
contribution tiers. He said the team is fairly agnostic on plan
design, but most of the reforms they've worked on have a defined
benefit component. Each of the reforms has had a way of paying
for the system that ensures costs don't eat into state and local
budgets and that the benefits earned by employees are fully
funded for their retirement.
MR. FROST stated that the new defined benefit tier proposed by
HB 55 does far too little to prevent growing unfunded pension
liabilities. The tweaks the supporters claim would eliminate the
financial risk to the state have undergone extremely minimal
actuarial scrutiny and there is no publicly available long-term
actuarial forecasting or stress testing to justify such a
financially profound policy decision.
MR. FROST advised that his team prepared some preliminary
modeling of the proposed new HB 55 tier and the results indicate
that HB 55 would likely expose the state to new and growing
unfunded liabilities. Assuming all current actuarial and
demographic assumptions are met, the bill for employee
contributions over an observed 30 year window would be about
$900 million due to the need to service growing unfunded
liabilities, not $722 million.
MR. FROST pointed out that public pension systems operate over
generations, but what's been presented is a five year cost
projection based on an assumption that the proposed pension tier
would hit all of its actuarial assumptions all the time. This is
something that Alaska PERS has never once accomplished in its
entire history. He noted that despite this, the Alaska House
passed the bill out of its chamber last year.
MR. FROST noted that the Buck actuaries admitted that the fiscal
note was only updated for results that raised actuarial
valuation and the effects of SB 55. His belief, however, is that
a proper actuarial analysis of HB 55 has not been conducted. He
drew a comparison to a bill recently passed by Washington State
for its police and fire system. He said that system has been
over funded since its inception in the 1970s and this was the
first increase. It was a multiplier increase and that was
included in the fiscal note. He said that is a relatively
miniscule task compared to a complete pension design overhaul,
but it's a shining example of the level of detail that has to be
considered when adjusting a pension benefit.
2:59:46 PM
MR. FROST pointed out that even with the limited scope and rigor
of the updated fiscal note, Buck's analysis should raise some
concerns for policy makers with the statement that adverse plan
experience or more conservative assumptions will increase the
PERS defined benefit liabilities, resulting in higher
contribution rates or more conservative assumptions.
MR. FROST also highlighted that from day one the plan will have
up to 15 years of liability on its books because any member can
have all their previously earned service in the DC plan
transferred at the unrealistically high discount rate of 7.3
percent. The national median is now under 7 percent and the
largest plans in the country are moving down into the mid to
upper six percentage range. Transferring service at too high a
discount rate sets up a situation where any downturn in market
performance or lowering of assumptions will quickly create
unfunded liabilities in the system in year two or three.
MR. FROST said Buck also missed the point that the existing
defined contribution plan offers almost the exact same
retirement benefit as the bill proposes. He said this suggests
that increasing the employee contribution and adding annuity
purchase options in the current plan could yield an equivalent
benefit and provide lifetime income options. The statement in
the fiscal note that approximately 94 percent of the DC service
as of June 30, 2021 was credited to the PERS DB means that
assets in the current DC plan holdings would cover nearly all
the equivalent liabilities in the HB 55 pension tier.
MR. FROST suggested that another potential explanation for using
7.3 percent is because using 7 percent would make the service
credit purchase actually more expensive at the time of transfer,
so members entering this new pension tier would effectively be
taking a benefit cut.
3:03:05 PM
MR. FROST said there has been no answer to the question about
what it would take to push the actuarial determined rate above
the 9 percent employer contribution because there hasn't been a
real actuarial analysis done.
MR. FROST said HB 55 is being proposed by groups that claim that
recruitment and retention troubles are due to the lack of a DB
pension for the members. However, that doesn't square with
nationwide data that indicates that 86 percent of police
stations across the U.S. are facing shortages and all except
Alaska have a benefit with some defined benefit component to it.
In fact, he has an academic working paper that shows teacher
retention rates did not change at all when Alaska changed from a
DB to a DC plan in 2005.
MR. FROST concluded his testimony stating that HB 55 clearly is
not written to put this new tier on a successful path. He
offered to work with the committee and stakeholders to help
draft a bill that best meets those needs. He offered to answer
questions.
3:04:28 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO stated that the members could submit their
questions to her office and she would get the answers. She
recognized Brad Fluetsch as the final presenter and asked him to
provide his credentials followed by his testimony.
3:04:51 PM
BRAD FLUETSCH, representing self, Santa Fe, New Mexico, stated
that he is a planning and investment officer for the City of
Santa Fe. He previously lived in Juneau and his previous work
experience includes being an investment officer with the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation; work with Sealaska Corporation; he
ran his own investment company for 17 years; and he has been a
student of the pension plan since the early '90s.
MR. FLUETSCH stated that he would confine his comments on HB 55
to a few main topics, the first of which is defined benefit (DB)
plans. He offered his belief that the State of Alaska made an
excellent decision by dropping the defined benefit plan and
moving employees to a defined contribution plan. The reason is
that DB plans were designed for employees to work for 30 years
and contribute to the plan throughout that time. Then once they
retire, the employees typically died within 10 years. The DB
plan worked fine in that model, but people live longer now.
Someone can work for 30 years and be retired for 40 or 50 years.
In that model the DB plan fails in every actuarial study.
Employees can't contribute enough and the plan can't earn enough
to offset that liability.
3:06:42 PM
MR. FLUETSCH said his next point is that the only thing you can
control in pension funds are the contributions. The market is
unpredictable so the return isn't known and in Alaska the
liabilities are also unknown because of what he calls
legislative tinkering with the plan. He said HB 55 is
legislative tinkering because it is adding benefits and
expanding the liabilities without a complete understanding of
how the whole plan works. He said the biggest problem with HB 55
are the liabilities associated with the ever expanding life
expectancy of Americans. That will be the death knell of defined
benefit plans.
3:08:02 PM
MR. FLUETSCH said the last point he would talk about is the
credibility of calling a seven page brief an actuarial report.
It doesn't answer questions and it doesn't say what the risks
are. It does little more than explain some very basic
assumptions. What it should be is a thorough analysis with
numbers, demographics, and charts. Buck's actuary said the risk
was mitigated. However, states that have mitigated risk
generally have had to give more.
MR. FLUETSCH described the City of Santa Fe pension plan to
emphasize that the tweaks to the pension plan proposed in HB 55
are unlikely to successfully affect retention. He said the point
is that if the state is having difficulty with recruitment and
retention it should look at pay policy, work environment, and
non-retirement benefits such as child care. He suggested the
committee think about what else the state could do with the
money it would contribute under HB 55 that would make employment
in police and fire more attractive.
3:11:14 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO restated that any questions the members had for
any of the testifiers should be submitted to her office and
those would be passed along to the appropriate parties.
CHAIR COSTELLO held HB 55 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Christopher Dean Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Matthew Barth Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Matthew Barth Resume_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Lena Lafferty Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Lena Lafferty Resume_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Clay Bezenek Cover Letter_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Clay Bezenek Resume_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Gabriel King Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Devon Thomas Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Devon Thomas Resume_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Chad Stigen Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Dominic Wenzell Board Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Dominic Wenzell Resume_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Valery Kudryn Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Valery Kudryn Resume_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Hannah St. George Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Taylor Friend Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Taylor Friend Resume_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Janice Hill Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Sterling Strait Board Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Letters of Support for Devon Thomas.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| HB 55 Actuarial Report 3.4.22.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 55 |
| HB 55 Written Testimony as of 4.3.22.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 55 |
| HB 55 Presentation - Fornia 4.4.22.pdf |
SL&C 4/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 55 |