Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/11/2004 03:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 245-PERS BENEFITS FOR HARBOR OFFICERS
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced SB 245 to be up for consideration
and recognized Senator Elton.
SENATOR KIM ELTON, sponsor of SB 245, refreshed members'
memories by telling them that he gave a brief introduction to
the bill at the end of a previous meeting and he had two points
to add.
SB 245 seeks to acknowledge the new and special duties harbor
officers have particularly since 9-11. He noted that, "What this
bill does isn't that different than the way we treat other port
officers." For instance, the port police at Anchorage airport
are members of this same bargaining unit. The duties and
requirements are essentially the same except that harbors are
dealing with boats and ships rather than airplanes.
This bill would affect 54 people statewide and all are employees
of political subdivisions of the state. In Juneau and Kodiak
nine harbor officers would be involved and in Sitka the number
would be eight. Other communities all have fewer officers than
that. He noted that in some of the communities the harbor
officers are police officers as well so they wouldn't be
affected since they're already covered under statute.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS wanted to be clear that the additional costs
would be borne by the various communities involved; this
wouldn't be a state responsibility.
SENATOR ELTON said that is correct, the costs would be borne by
the employee and the municipality. The fiscal note reflects no
state costs, but the addendum recognizes that there are costs
that would be borne by municipalities. The harbor officers'
contribution rate would be adjusted as well.
SENATOR BERT STEDMAN asked if there was any fiscal information
available from affected cities and boroughs.
SENATOR ELTON replied page two of the fiscal note reflects
fiscal information from Juneau and Anchorage and although it
doesn't have site-specific information, costs could be roughly
extrapolated.
SENATOR STEDMAN noted that there would certainly be substantial
benefits to the harbor officers and this legislation would make
it easier for municipalities and cities to attract and retain
employees. However, he wanted to get more information on the
fiscal impact to the affected communities. Having spoken at
length to the finance officers in Ketchikan and Sitka regarding
the PERS and TRS under funding he realizes that they are already
faced with a possible step increase of as much as 5 percent.
With that in mind, he wanted to hear more about their comfort
level on this. Although he didn't have any fundamental objection
to the benefit package, municipalities are clearly running out
of room to maneuver.
SENATOR ELTON responded that Senator Stedman's initial comments
were the compelling reason for him to introduce the legislation.
Given the fundamental duties of a harbor officer, and the way
they have changed especially in communities that are now ports
of call for major cruise ships - the fundamental duties have
shifted dramatically." He said he would be happy to work with
the Senator to get the desired information. He further reasoned
that because of the fiscal note the Finance Committee would
scrutinize the bill closely.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS deemed Senator Stedman's request reasonable
and said he would hold the bill.
SENATOR GUESS remarked that the bill had already been held for a
year.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS opened public testimony.
TIM ACKERMAN, Juneau harbors officer, testified in support of SB
245. He advised that he has been employed in the harbor
department since 1988 and his range of duties and
responsibilities have changed considerably over the years
particularly with the new homeland security requirements. They
coordinate efforts with the Coast Guard, police department, fire
department and the FBI.
KEVIN RICHIE, Alaska Municipal League, agreed with the sentiment
that communities should be a part of the discussion. He said he
spoke with the Division of Retirement and Benefits about the
potential impacts, but the leagues policy statement is, "if
things increase the cost to local governments and retirement
system, that it's not a good thing for the retirement system."
He said it's ironic that it's a municipal bill, but it's in a
system that's controlled by the state.
Another good municipal question, he said, is why do
firefighters, police officer, and teachers have a 20 and out
system? Partly it is to attract and retain qualified people and
presumably because firefighters and police officers have a
higher level of danger in their jobs. However, he said he
believes that a number of municipal jobs are dangerous and used
assessors and librarians as examples. He said he wasn't trying
to minimize the dangers in law enforcement and what harbor
officers do, but he questioned how they fit in the whole scheme.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked about the opportunity for communities
to opt in or opt out.
MR. RICHIE said that would be a minimum for a municipality.
LARRY SIMMONS testified via teleconference from Kenai in
opposition to the bill. He made the point that the PERS system
is seriously under funded and municipalities are on the hook.
Furthermore, he took issue with the definition of harbor officer
and said that the harbor officer duties in Kenai don't compare
to a police officer's duties.
MATT CLARK, Homer port and harbor employee, testified via
teleconference on behalf of the Homer harbor staff and personnel
in support of SB 245. He outlined the hazardous situations they
encounter on a daily basis. Some of the hazards include oil
spill clean up, pumping out boats with hazardous material
aboard, putting out fires on boats, responding to a capsized or
sinking boat and generally being the first responders in
emergency situations.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Senator Elton if he had any interest in
exploring opt-in or opt-out as a possibility for municipalities.
SENATOR ELTON carefully said, "if it is an interest of the
committee's and that is the way the bill moves, it's an interest
of mine." He crafted the bill the way he did because these
officers are owed the same recognition that other first
responders and public safety officers are given. The examples
given by the harbor officer from Homer made the concept very
real.
His preference would be to not go that route. With regard to the
testimony offered by Mr. Richie, he said he didn't think it is
fair to characterize the duties of a harbor officer with those
of a librarian. Second, in many communities, harbors are an
enterprise function as they are in Juneau. Therefore, the costs
incurred would be transferred to the harbor users. That is a
significant difference, he asserted. "The concept we use here is
no different than the concept we used when we added dispatchers
to the peace officer retirement system. Dispatchers, of course,
are an extremely important provision of public safety services,
but I would note that their jobs are probably less hazardous
than the job of a person who is actually in harbors." Of course
he said he was willing to talk if committee members disagree
with his approach.
SENATOR STEDMAN said, "I disagree with the concept of possibly
adding or allowing an expansion of this particular benefit
because of either costs and or just feel philosophically that
they don't have the risk level like a peace officer has. I don't
have any problem with that."
SENATOR ELTON said he looked forward to working with the Senator
to quantify "on a micro level" the costs to communities.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS suggested that everyone would learn more
about funding of harbor offices when they do a little research
and talk to the communities. SB 245 was held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|