Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
02/18/2025 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB78 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 78 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 18, 2025
1:33 p.m.
1:33:43 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage, Co-Chair
Representative Jamie Allard
Representative Jeremy Bynum
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Nellie Unangiq Jimmie
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Nolan Klouda, Policy Director, Mayor LaFrance
Administration; Tyler Bond, Research Director, National
Institute on Retirement Security; Representative Chuck
Kopp.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Doug Schrage, Fire Chief, Anchorage Fire Department,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 78 RETIREMENT SYSTEMS; DEFINED BENEFIT OPT.
HB 78 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 78
"An Act relating to the Public Employees' Retirement
System of Alaska and the teachers' retirement system;
providing certain employees an opportunity to choose
between the defined benefit and defined contribution
plans of the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Alaska and the teachers' retirement system; and
providing for an effective date."
1:35:03 PM
DOUG SCHRAGE, FIRE CHIEF, ANCHORAGE FIRE DEPARTMENT,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), introduced himself and
provided invited testimony. He shared that in addition to
his role as Anchorage Fire Chief, he was also a past
president and lifelong member of the Alaska Fire Chiefs
Association (AFCA). He explained that he was speaking on
behalf of dedicated firefighters throughout Alaska,
although the majority of his experience was with the
Anchorage Fire Department (AFD). The primary point of his
testimony was to relay that the lack of a defined benefit
(DB) pension system presented a recruitment and retention
problem that was costing Alaskan taxpayers. He shared that
recruitment numbers for firefighters in Anchorage were not
as strong as they had been in the past. However, retention
was an even greater challenge, particularly once Tier IV
benefits became portable. Some firefighters had left for
departments in other states, especially in the Pacific
Northwest, where DB pension systems were still available.
Mr. Schrage explained that Anchorage spent millions of
dollars each year to recruit and train new firefighters.
After graduating from the academy, new firefighters spent
their first few years gaining valuable experience and
achieving journeyman status while serving the community. In
the past, the fire department benefitted from new
employees' experience over the course of their careers,
which allowed the city to recover the costs of the initial
training. However, the department lost its return on
investment when firefighters departed within five to seven
years, after receiving full training within the state. He
relayed that journeyman firefighters from Alaska were being
aggressively recruited by fire departments in the Pacific
Northwest and some departments were offering significant
signing bonuses. He was aware of one situation in which a
$50,000 signing bonus was offered for paramedics. Lateral
transfers were also available and allowed Anchorage-trained
firefighters to join other departments after only
abbreviated training. He shared that one department had
used a former Anchorage employee and his family in a
recruitment video that targeted AFD personnel specifically.
Mr. Schrage stated that Anchorage firefighters
overwhelmingly identified the lack of a DB pension as the
primary reason for their decision to leave the department,
which was why AFD had ceased out-of-state recruitment
altogether. He explained that the department could not
compete effectively because out-of-state applicants were
more likely to return to their home states once their
benefits became portable. He relayed that AFD was competing
for a limited pool of paramedics against fire departments
across the nation, and in response, Anchorage had begun
paying incumbent firefighters to attend paramedic school.
The fire department offered full tuition, benefits, wages,
and backfill support, resulting in a cost of approximately
$100,000 per paramedic. He thought it was particularly
disheartening when a trained paramedic left for another
department after reaching the five-year mark.
Mr. Schrage stated that most Anchorage firefighters were
now Tier IV employees and within the next 18 months, the
last of the Tier III firefighters would become eligible for
retirement. He warned that without deliberate legislative
action, turnover would increase and the relative cost of
training new hires would rise further over time as
employees retired. He appreciated the committee's efforts
to reduce the out-migration of Alaska's firefighters
expressed his full support of HB 78.
Representative Hannan stated that she did not have a
question but congratulated Mr. Schrage on his newest
grandchild.
Co-Chair Foster seconded the sentiment.
1:40:25 PM
NOLAN KLOUDA, POLICY DIRECTOR, MAYOR LAFRANCE
ADMINISTRATION, shared that Anchorage Mayor Suzanne
LaFrance was unable to testify before the committee but had
asked him to convey her strong support for the bill. The
legislation was an important measure and he appreciated the
efforts to address the issue of pensions and pension
reform. He stated that the Anchorage was facing significant
labor shortages that affected its ability to deliver
essential services. He relayed that Anchorage had
implemented a number of policies to improve employee
retention, but it would continue to lose employees without
a competitive pension system.
Mr. Klouda noted that Mayor LaFrance inherited high vacancy
rates when she took office. He shared that the overall
vacancy rate across the municipality through 2023 and into
2024 was approximately 16 percent and in some departments,
the vacancy rate was even higher. The Anchorage Police
Department (APD) had a 20 percent vacancy rate and the
Maintenance and Operations Department, which managed road
maintenance and snow removal, had a vacancy rate of
approximately 18 percent. The Department of Health (DOH)
had a vacancy rate of approximately 30 percent and the
Municipal Prosecutor's Office experienced a 35 percent
vacancy rate in 2024. He shared that the LaFrance
Administration had worked hard to implement improvements to
address staffing challenges and had seen progress in some
areas; however, turnover remained high. He stated that
turnover in the Municipal Attorney's Office had at one
point approached 60 percent in recent years.
Mr. Klouda reiterated that the vacancies directly impacted
the municipality's ability to provide essential services,
such as attorneys who prosecuted misdemeanor theft, public
health nurses, heavy equipment operators responsible for
snow removal, and police officers who patrolled the
streets. He stated that all of the listed services had been
negatively affected by employee turnover and retention
challenges. He further explained that, during the past
summer, APD was short by approximately 60 officers, which
presented a serious challenge to Anchorage's ability to
address public safety in a basic and effective manner. He
emphasized that pension reform should be viewed as a public
safety issue in addition to its connection to the provision
of other critical services. He emphasized that it was a
critical public safety issue.
Mr. Klouda reported that the administration had analyzed
how retirement systems affected employee retention. There
was a recent human resources (HR) study comparing employees
with DB pensions to those with defined contribution (DC)
plans that examined employees who began work at the same
time and measured their length of service. The results
showed that employees with DB pensions remained employed
for approximately nine years, while those with DC plans
stayed for about five years. He emphasized that the results
reflected a significant difference in retention between the
two plan types.
Mr. Klouda continued that the administration had
implemented various retention strategies, but pension
structure was one area where state-level policy
intervention was essential. He reiterated that
municipalities like Anchorage relied on a strong workforce
to deliver essential services such as road maintenance and
public safety. He concluded by stating that local
governments would continue to struggle to recruit and
retain workers and to deliver the services communities
required if the pension issue was not addressed. He
emphasized that anyone concerned about safe streets, clean
parks, reliable public services, and infrastructure should
also care about pension reform.
1:44:31 PM
Representative Allard commented that Anchorage faced record
levels of homelessness, the school district was ranked last
in the nation, and that crime and murders were occurring at
alarming per capita rates. She stressed that housing
affordability was in crisis. She asked if the DB system was
truly the main factor preventing people from staying in
Alaska.
Mr. Klouda responded that a number of factors affected
Anchorage's ability to recruit and retain employees, and
that the challenges were not limited to municipal
government but applied broadly across employers. He
explained that the municipality did not have control over
the Anchorage School District (ASD). He stated that housing
remained a major issue for the LaFrance Administration and
was a top policy focus. He clarified that the
administration did not claim pensions were the only
solution to Anchorage's complex problems, but the
administration viewed pensions as a critical factor,
especially when reviewing the number of employees lost to
other states that offered more competitive retirement
systems.
Representative Allard remarked that the Anchorage Assembly
voted on ASD's budget and therefore did influence it. She
emphasized that crime rates, housing affordability, and
homelessness were key reasons why people left Anchorage.
She thought that the claim that pension reform was the
primary solution would be a "hard sell."
Representative Bynum stated that he appreciated the use of
data in the discussion. He understood that DB employees
typically remained in their positions approximately nine
years, while DC employees stayed around five years. He
asked whether the data used for the two groups came from
the same data set. He noted that there were no new DB
employees currently being hired in Alaska. He asked whether
the data for DB employees referred to employees who had
started employment during the same period, or if the data
spanned different years. He asked for clarification on
whether the comparison aligned.
Mr. Klouda responded that he would be able to gather more
information regarding the specific analysis. He explained
that the HR department had analyzed cases where employees
may have started working at the Municipality of Anchorage
but had previous service elsewhere under DB plans, such as
Tier I or Tier II systems. He stated that in some cases,
employees had not started during the time DB pensions were
originally active, but were still categorized as DB
employees based on prior service. He offered to follow up
with more information.
Representative Bynum thought that the information would be
helpful to better understand the basis for the retention
numbers that had been cited. He added that he was trying to
understand the reasons why employees had left the
municipality. He understood that some employees left for
more competitive pensions and asked whether the
municipality had conducted a total compensation analysis
comparing its compensation package with those of the
employers to which staff had departed. He asked whether the
data showed that pensions were specifically the reason for
leaving, or whether it reflected broader compensation
issues. He emphasized the importance of compensation in
recruitment and retention and asked whether a holistic
evaluation had been conducted.
Mr. Klouda replied that he would follow up with more
detailed information. He explained that the municipality
had conducted extensive surveying of its current workforce,
and pension issues consistently ranked at the top of
employees' concerns. He referenced prior testimony from
Chief Schrage, who described targeted recruitment efforts
from out-of-state employers who actively recruited
Anchorage firefighters using more generous pensions as an
incentive. He thought there was strong reason to believe
pension offerings were a key factor in employee retention.
He would follow up with survey results and any other
relevant materials to further clarify the findings.
Representative Bynum would follow up outside of the meeting
for additional information.
1:49:18 PM
Representative Stapp asked for the municipality's position
on the 22 percent contribution rate for the Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS).
Mr. Klouda responded that he did not have an immediate
answer and would need to follow up with more information.
Representative Stapp relayed that municipalities often
supported a return to DB but expressed concern about
bearing additional financial risk or contributing more. He
asked whether anything currently prevented Anchorage from
creating its own retirement benefit system separate from
the state.
Mr. Klouda responded that it was his understanding that the
municipality could theoretically create its own pension
system. However, such systems benefitted from a larger pool
of participants to distribute risk and costs. He thought
that a standalone system would lack the necessary scale,
which made statewide systems more advantageous.
Representative Stapp stated that some bargaining units and
employees in Fairbanks were not enrolled in the
Supplemental Benefits System (SBS). He asked whether all
employees under the Municipality of Anchorage participated
in SBS or if some had opted out.
Mr. Klouda responded that he understood that most of the
municipal employees were enrolled in SBS. He did not know
the exact number but could follow up.
1:51:33 PM
TYLER BOND, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON
RETIREMENT SECURITY, introduced the PowerPoint presentation
"Presentation to Alaska House Finance Committee" dated
February 18, 2025 (copy on file). He explained that the
National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) was a
nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization based in
Washington, D.C. He clarified that he was not present to
testify in support of or in opposition to HB 78, but to
share findings from the institute's research on public
pension plans in states across the nation. He stated that
while the organization conducted research on a wide variety
of retirement-related topics, the majority of its work
focused on issues affecting public pension plans.
Mr. Bond continued to slide 2 which included a report
released by the organization several years earlier that
focused specifically on Alaska. He explained that the
report evaluated the recruitment and retention of teachers
and other education professionals in Alaska and offered an
analysis of potential retirement plan design options for
the professions. The chart separated states into two
categories: those in which all or most teachers and
education professionals participated in Social Security,
and those in which only some or none did. He stated that
the top portion of both sections showed states offering a
DB pension. He noted that a majority of states still
offered a DB pension plan.
Mr. Bond relayed that there were other retirement plan
types listed on the chart under the DB plans, including
hybrid plans, cash balance plans, and states that allowed
employees to choose their plan type. He pointed out that
the very bottom of the chart showed states offering only a
DC plan, and that the only state listed in that category
was Alaska. He emphasized that Alaska was the only state in
the nation that only offered a DC retirement plan to its
teachers. He added that if the chart had included other
categories of public employees, there would have been a few
additional states in which most employees were in a DC
plan. However, he reiterated that Alaska remained an
outlier.
1:55:09 PM
Representative Galvin asked about the accessibility of
retirement plan data for prospective employees. She asked
if, for example, a 30-year-old police officer or
firefighter searching for employment across the country
could access retirement plan information online.
Mr. Bond replied that the information was relatively easy
to obtain. He explained that public employees in sought-
after professions, such as paramedics, could easily access
information about which states offered pensions.
Representative Galvin understood that the information was
public and it was well-known that Alaska placed at the
bottom of the chart. She wanted to clarify that it was not
new information to anyone looking for employment.
Mr. Bond responded that if a 30-year old firefighter in
Alaska was considering where the remainder of their career
might take them, it would be easy to find information
online about other employment options. He stated that the
information was not necessarily common knowledge, but it
was accessible knowledge.
Representative Stapp asked Mr. Bond to explain the meaning
of the different plan types mentioned in the presentation.
He specifically asked what constituted a cash balance plan
and a hybrid plan. He thought a clarification would help
both the committee and the public understand what was being
discussed.
Mr. Bond responded that the top portion of the chart
displayed traditional DB pension plans and the second row
detailed DB plans that included a DC component, which was
typically referred to as a hybrid plan. He clarified that
hybrid plans included a DB component that was smaller than
a full DB system. In addition, there was usually a
mandatory DC plan layered on top of the reduced DB
component. There were several variations of plan choice
presented in the chart. Some states allowed workers to
choose between a full DB plan and a hybrid plan, such as
Washington. Other states designated the DB plan as the
default option, but allowed teachers to opt into a DC plan.
He explained that in other states, the choice was between a
hybrid plan and a DC-only plan. He relayed that a cash
balance plan was somewhat of a hybrid between a DB and a DC
plan. Employees under a cash balance plan accumulated
interest credits and earnings credits and upon retirement,
the credits were converted into an annuity stream. He
stated that the plan provisions established the
calculations for the interest and earnings credits.
1:59:32 PM
Representative Stapp asked what the practical differences
between a DB plan and a DB plus DC hybrid plan were. He
asked how hybrid plans typically differed from full DB
plans, particularly in terms of salary percentages and
benefit structure.
Mr. Bond responded that the percentage of salary
contributed to the DB component in a hybrid plan was
typically lower. He explained that in a full DB plan, an
employee might contribute 8 percent, whereas in a hybrid
plan, the employee might contribute only 4 percent to the
DB plan and an additional mandatory 3 percent to the DC
plan. The benefit formula for the DB portion of the hybrid
plan was based on a smaller benefit multiplier than in the
full DB plan. He relayed that participants in a hybrid plan
would still receive a guaranteed monthly income from the DB
component, but would be expected to supplement the income
with savings and investment returns from the DC portion.
Representative Stapp stated that he understood that states
utilized hybrid or DC plans to control for risk. He asked
if his understanding was correct.
Mr. Bond responded that it was a fair assessment.
Representative Hannan noted that the two columns on the
right-hand side of the chart were labeled for teachers and
education support professionals (ESP). She asked if NIRS
had conducted the same type of analysis for other
categories of public sector employees.
Mr. Bond responded that NIRS had not produced a similar
chart for other categories of public employees. He stated
that the chart was specifically intended to evaluate
teacher recruitment and retention in Alaska. He suggested
that a similar chart could be created for other categories,
but there would likely be more variation because many
public safety retirement plans were sponsored at the
municipal level rather than the state level. However, the
fundamental structures of the plans would not look
significantly different.
2:03:06 PM
Representative Bynum understood that there had been
reference to Alaska appearing at the bottom of the chart.
He asked for confirmation that the chart was not intended
as a ranking, but rather a reflection of where Alaska fell
based on plan type. He asked if his interpretation was
accurate.
Mr. Bond responded in the affirmative and clarified that
the chart did not reflect any kind of ranking.
Representative Bynum asked whether there had been any
evaluation done regarding the option to opt out of or into
other retirement options. He understood that Alaska
teachers had the option to opt into Social Security in the
past. He asked if there had been a study on the impact of
the choice and how it related to overall retirement
outcomes and decision-making.
Mr. Bond asked whether Representative Bynum was asking
specifically about opting in or out of Social Security, or
whether the question was about states in which there was a
choice between plan types such as DB pensions.
Representative Bynum clarified that he was asking whether
the states listed on the chart also provided options for
participation in Social Security. He asked if the NIRS
analysis only considered plan types or if it also
considered the ability to participate in something like
Social Security.
Mr. Bond responded that regardless of plan type, most or
all teachers in the states listed on the top of the chart
participated in Social Security. Only some teachers or
sometimes no teachers on the bottom half of the chart
participated in Social Security, regardless of plan type.
He relayed that most states did not allow employees to
choose whether to participate in the pension plan. There
was generally no choice regarding participation in Social
Security either.
Representative Bynum asked if there had been any evaluation
or analysis on the impact of Alaska not being in the top
category. He asked if the information on the chart was
simply a neutral grouping of data.
Mr. Bond responded that the chart should not be interpreted
as any form of ranking. He stated that it was simply a
method for grouping states into different categories. The
chart was not intended to convey that the DB plan was
necessarily superior or inferior to any of the other plans
listed. He stated that prior to his time at NIRS, the
organization had produced at least one report analyzing
several states that had adopted choice options that allowed
workers to select which type of retirement plan to
participate in. He offered to follow up with the details of
the report. He added that one factor which significantly
impacted the outcome of the choice was the default option
and whether it was set to a DB plan or another option. He
relayed that the chosen default appeared to greatly
influence which plan workers ultimately selected.
2:07:02 PM
Representative Allard asked what happened to a DB member's
benefits after the member died.
Mr. Bond responded that typically, most plans included an
option for the member to elect a survivor benefit. If the
member selected that option, at least some portion of their
pension would go to a surviving spouse upon the member's
death. He stated that if the member did not elect the
survivor benefit, the payments would end upon the member's
death.
Representative Allard asked if he had studied individuals
who were in currently in the DB plan.
Mr. Bond responded in the affirmative.
Representative Allard asked if the DB plan in Alaska had
similar survivor benefit options. She asked whether the
benefit could be passed on to a family member or next of
kin, or whether it would end entirely.
Mr. Bond responded that he would need to follow up with the
information.
Representative Allard understood that if an Alaska DC plan
member passed away, the remaining funds could be passed on
to the next of kin or to the member's children, and the
funds could be accessed until they were fully depleted. She
asked Mr. Bond if he was aware of the information.
Mr. Bond responded in the affirmative. He explained that
the DC plan functioned as an individual savings account,
which meant that the participant could designate the
beneficiary or beneficiaries to receive the funds, such as
a spouse, children, or any other designee.
2:09:08 PM
Representative Hannan asked whether Mr. Bond knew how many
other states did not provide a Social Security benefit to
their teachers.
Mr. Bond responded that the bottom half of the chart showed
several states where few or no teachers participated in
Social Security, such as California, Louisiana, Maine, and
Texas.
Representative Allard reiterated that in Alaska's DB
system, a portion of the benefit could go to the spouse.
However, once the spouse passed away, the benefit would not
continue to any other family member.
Mr. Bond responded that he was not aware of any instances
in which the benefit passed from a member to a spouse and
then to a child.
Representative Bynum asked whether the cost to the employer
remained in states with choice plans was the same
regardless of the plan the employee selected.
Mr. Bond responded that he would need to review the plan
details in states with choice plans to determine the cost
implications for employers.
2:11:10 PM
Mr. Bond continued to slide 3 and explained that the
analysis focused on Alaska's experience following the
closure of the DB plans and the implementation of the DC
plans. He stated that the analysis reviewed changes in
worker count by tenure from 2005, when the DB plans were
still open, to 2021, which was the most recent year of
available data at the time of the analysis. He stated that
the chart illustrated that the number of workers with fewer
years of tenure had decreased significantly for the
Teachers' Retirement System (TRS). He noted that PERS
numbers had also declined, though less sharply. He stated
that the decrease pattern suggested lower retention in 2021
compared to 2005, which suggested that the DC plan had not
been as effective at retaining employees as the DB plan. He
stated that the number of employees with more than 14 years
of experience had increased during the time period, which
indicated that workers still participating in the DB plans
had remained in their positions in order to continue
earning pension benefits. He added that newer workers who
joined after the implementation of the DC plans did not
appear to remain in their positions as long.
Representative Tomaszewski asked whether there was an
average rate from the lower 48 states in 2005 that Mr. Bond
had used as a point of comparison.
Mr. Bond responded that the data did not compare Alaska to
the lower 48 states. He clarified that the analysis only
compared tenure counts within Alaska and analyzed the
difference between 2005 and 2021. He stressed that all data
in the chart was exclusive to Alaska.
Representative Tomaszewski asked whether it would be
relevant to include national data in order to determine if
other states were in a similar position in 2005. He asked
if comparing Alaska to other states would be pertinent.
Mr. Bond responded that such an analysis could certainly be
conducted, but that it was not part of the scope of work
for the report. He confirmed that the report focused
exclusively on Alaska data.
2:14:38 PM
Representative Bynum thought that Mr. Bond had made an "if
then" statement based on the data comparing Alaska in 2005
to 2021. He asked if other major factors affecting
retention and employment had been evaluated.
Mr. Bond responded that the analysis had only focused on
the retirement plan options, as that was the scope of the
task. He stated that the analysis had not included other
factors that may have influenced worker count or changes in
workforce over time. He relayed that the absence of a DB
plan in 2021 contributed to the lower count of workers with
fewer years of tenure, although other factors likely
contributed as well.
Co-Chair Josephson understood that if an individual failed
to select the survivorship option, no benefit would be paid
to the spouse when the member predeceased the spouse. He
asked whether that situation would fall under Alaska Title
13, which was the state's trust and estates code. He asked
whether it would be within the legislature's authority to
make a statutory change allowing the benefit to pass
through the estate even if the survivorship box had not
been selected, or whether the matter was governed by the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or another federal
authority.
Mr. Bond responded that he did not have the information.
The question was more specific and legal in nature and he
had not researched it.
Co-Chair Josephson asked what happened to the benefit in
such a case. He asked whether the benefit simply ceased or
whether it passed to the estate.
Mr. Bond responded that he did not have the information.
Representative Allard remarked that she thought she knew
the answer. She understood that the state retained the
funds if the survivorship box was not checked. She added
that on the bottom of slide 1, the chart listed Alaska as
"DC only," which she believed was incorrect because Alaska
had a very generous SBS program. She asked why SBS was not
included in the slide.
Mr. Bond responded that SBS was mentioned briefly in the
report, but it was not the focus of the research.
Representative Allard asked for clarification that Mr. Bond
was not asked to include SBS in the slide.
Mr. Bond responded in the affirmative.
2:18:54 PM
Representative Bynum asked about the chart on slide 3 that
included data comparing 2005 and 2021 and the TRS and PERS
categories. He asked what the comparison was intended to
demonstrate for TRS, for example.
Mr. Bond responded that the analysis reviewed the number of
TRS workers in 2005 who had less than five years of
experience, those who had between five and 14 years, and
those who had more than 14 years. He explained that the
same counts were then reviewed for 2021. The chart
presented the difference between those two data points. He
stated that the number of TRS workers with less than five
years of experience was 11 percent lower in 2021 than in
2005.
Representative Bynum asked if the specific cohort of
employees transitioning from the DB plan to the DC plan had
been tracked. He asked whether the analysis was based on
following specific cohorts or whether it simply compared
two separate groups of employees at two different stages in
their careers.
Mr. Bond responded that the analysis reviewed the total
number of participants in TRS. In 2005, the number included
only participants in the DB Plan, as it was the only plan
offered during that year. In 2021, the total TRS workforce
included participants in both the DC plan and DB plan. The
analysis focused on 2005 because it was the last full year
in which the DB plan was offered throughout the entire
year, and 2021 was selected as it was the most recent year
of available data at the time of the analysis.
2:22:02 PM
Representative Hannan remarked that Mr. Bond may not have
fully understood Representative Allard's earlier question.
She asked whether SBS had been excluded from the evaluation
of teachers and university employees because those
employees were not eligible for SBS.
Mr. Bond replied that the analysis focused specifically on
teachers and other education employees in Alaska. He stated
that when the report referenced PERS, it acknowledged that
some PERS employees participated in Social Security and
others participated in the SBS program. However, SBS was
not a focus of the analysis because the report concentrated
on employees who were not eligible for SBS.
Representative Hannan asked for confirmation that teachers
and other education employees were not eligible for SBS.
Mr. Bond responded in the affirmative.
Representative Allard stated that she wished to clarify
that teachers had been eligible for SBS at one time but had
opted out.
Co-Chair Josephson noted there was previous discussion
about what would happen if a member failed to elect
survivorship benefits. There had been a comment indicating
that the benefit would revert to the state in the absence
of an election. He asked for confirmation that the trust
itself was not the state and that the contributions in the
DB plan were pooled in a trust for the benefit of members.
Mr. Bond responded that the contributions of DB
participants were held in trust for the benefit of the
members.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for confirmation that the trust
was a separate entity from the state.
Mr. Bond confirmed that the trust was distinct from the
state.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that when a public employee
elected a survivorship benefit, they agreed to receive a
reduced benefit in exchange for providing a survivor
benefit to a spouse. He understood that the process was
actuarially determined so that the spouse would receive a
diminished benefit if they outlived the employee. He asked
if his understanding was correct.
Mr. Bond responded in the affirmative. He stated that when
a member elected a survivor option, the member's benefit
was reduced to provide an actuarially fair benefit to the
spouse in the event that the spouse survived the member.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that he hoped such elections were
made without coercion and that the decision likely involved
consideration of the couple's other assets, the health of
the retiring employee, and the financial needs of the
surviving spouse. There were many variables that influenced
the decision whether to elect a survivorship benefit. He
stated that it might be plausible for someone to conclude
that there was no value in the survivorship benefit and to
instead retain their full benefit. He asked whether that
was a reasonable perspective.
Mr. Bond responded that it was an individual decision that
a member and their spouse would make based on their own
circumstances and what they determined to be the best
option for the situation.
Co-Chair Josephson asked what Mr. Bond's opinion was about
the criticism that although DB plan benefits could
effectively cover a couple, the benefits did not extend to
the next generation. He asked if the DB plan retained more
value than the DC plan, even though it could not be passed
on to children.
Mr. Bond responded that when comparing DB and DC, it was
determined that DB plans were more economically efficient
than DC plans. He stated that the NIRS analysis showed that
benefits could generally be provided at half the cost
through a DB plan. He attributed the efficiency to the
pooling of contributions and risks, including longevity and
investment risks. He added that professionally managed DB
plans typically achieved higher investment returns with
lower fees than individually managed DC plans.
2:28:26 PM
Representative Allard asked what would happen to the
benefits if a wife under a DB plan and her spouse were
killed in a car accident. She asked whether the benefits
returned to the trust.
Mr. Bond responded that the funds would remain in the
trust.
Representative Allard asked what would happen if the same
situation occurred under a DC plan.
Mr. Bond replied that if beneficiaries had been designated,
the funds would be directed to the beneficiaries.
Representative Galvin stated her understanding that if
someone passed away without designating a beneficiary, any
benefit would be transferred to their estate. From there,
the estate process would determine where the benefits were
ultimately directed. She noted that unless there was a
specific provision in a contract, estate law generally
provided clarity in such cases. She did not think that the
committee should delve too deeply into estate planning
without the presence of a qualified estate planner.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Director Kathy Lee of the
Division of Retirement and Benefits (DRB) was available
online to answer detailed questions.
2:31:04 PM
Mr. Bond continued on slide 4 and explained that when NIRS
analyzed the data for Alaska, it reviewed the termination
rates determined by actuaries for different categories of
public employees. The termination rates for participants in
the DB plan were compared to those in the DC plan. The
chart on the slide showed what would happen if there were
100 male peace officers in Alaska who were fully vested in
their retirement benefit at age 30, meaning they had worked
for five years. The chart tracked how many of the
individuals would be projected to remain employed over the
next 25 years. He explained that at age 54, it was
projected that 63 of the 100 fully vested officers would
still be working if they were in the DB plan. In contrast,
only 17 would still be working as peace officers in Alaska
if they were in the DC plan. He relayed that the DB plan
provided 67 percent more service after vesting than the DC
plan. He stated that the DC plan did not retain peace
officers as effectively, which resulted in more officers
leaving earlier in their careers. He concluded that the
total years of service under DC were lower than what would
be expected under DB.
Representative Bynum asked whether the data presented was a
projection or an analysis of actual data following a group
of employees through the described process.
Mr. Bond responded that it was a projection.
Representative Stapp remarked that it was fairly clear why
retention rates would be better under DB due to the
guaranteed nature of the benefits compared to DC. However,
he thought the structural comparison in the analysis was
somewhat flawed. He explained that the DB plan offered
fixed incentives for retention because the longer an
employee worked, the greater their accrued benefit was
based on salary percentage. He pointed out that the DC plan
did not include a comparable metric. For example, the
employer match in the DC plan did not increase with tenure,
unlike the increasing benefit percentage in the DB plan. He
asked how such a significant variable was accounted for. He
thought it was an "apples-to-oranges" comparison.
Mr. Bond responded that the best way to address the
question was to consider the issue from the perspective of
the state or a non-state municipal employer. He agreed that
Representative Stapp made an accurate point and that there
were provisions that were intentionally included in the DB
plan to retain employees longer. He noted that DC plans did
not include such provisions and there was higher attrition.
From the employer's standpoint, the decision was whether to
incentivize long-term retention or to accept a higher rate
of turnover by not including such incentives in the plan
design.
2:36:09 PM
Representative Stapp asked if the gap between DB and DC
would become greater or lesser if a stair-stepped structure
with higher percentages of employer contributions tied to
retention was implemented into DC plans.
Mr. Bond responded that such a structure had not been
modeled in the analysis. He confirmed that a DC plan could
be designed to include increasing contribution percentages
over time, but the structure had not been modeled in the
analysis.
Representative Stapp stated that he would still expect the
DB plan to produce better retention outcomes. He thought
that even if such a DC plan were created, it would still
likely result in lower retention because the DB plan
continued to provide incentives throughout an employee's
career. By contrast, the current DC plan structure offered
no increased incentives after the five-year vesting period
and "dropped off a cliff."
Representative Allard asked if there was a graph in the
report that compared Alaska's DB plan retention data with
that of another state.
Mr. Bond responded that the report did not include a chart
that directly compared retention in Alaska to retention in
another state.
Representative Allard asked if retention in Alaska had
declined since the DB plan was no longer in place. She
wondered if other states that still offered a DB plan had
stronger retention rates than Alaska.
Mr. Bond responded in the affirmative. He confirmed that
retention was higher in states that offered a DB plan than
it was in Alaska.
Representative Bynum remarked that comparing Alaska to
other states was difficult due to the unique living
conditions and dynamics in Alaska. He expressed concern
about making direct comparisons between states. He thought
that the actual comparative models on retention between DC
and DB structures was not examined. He understood that such
models had not been included in the analysis. He asked how
difficult it would be to conduct such an analysis.
Mr. Bond explained that to compile the chart on slide 4,
NIRS had used the ultimate termination rates provided by
the actuary. He stated that the actuary reviewed the
experience of both plans and determined the rates based on
the observed performance, which provided enough information
to project future years of service. He stated that modeling
different design changes in a DC plan would be possible,
but it was not included in the analysis.
2:40:17 PM
Co-Chair Schrage commented that although Alaska was unique,
the state had already undergone a transition from DB to DC.
He emphasized that the change allowed the state to evaluate
retention outcomes directly, rather than relying solely on
comparisons with other states. He asked for confirmation
that Alaska already had the data necessary to demonstrate
that retention had declined following the shift to a DC
plan.
Mr. Bond responded that social scientists might refer to
the change from DB to DC as a natural experiment. He
remarked that on one day the state had a DB plan, and on
the next, it had transitioned to a DC plan. He thought the
change allowed for a direct comparison of data from before
and after the switch. He noted that the data illustrating
the differences before and after the change were included
in the analysis.
Co-Chair Schrage stated that both Alaska's historical
experience and comparisons to other states clearly
demonstrated that a DB plan provided a better benefit as
well as offered a guarantee and superior outcomes. He
asserted that the question was not whether a DB plan was
better than a DC plan because the evidence in support of DB
was overwhelming. Instead, the relevant question for the
committee to consider was whether a transition to a DB plan
would be affordable for the state and whether it would
introduce excessive risk. He suggested that the issue
should be framed strictly in terms of risk and cost. He
stressed that academic research and historical evidence
consistently showed that a DB plan was more advantageous
for employees and improved retention outcomes.
Representative Allard commented that Mr. Bond had said
other states had better outcomes, but Alaska's retention
rate was at 17.5 percent, which she believed placed the
state in the middle. She asked which states with DB plans
had higher or lower retention rates than Alaska. She noted
that Texas had a 28 percent retention rate and she was not
convinced that Alaska was in the middle.
Mr. Bond responded that he had not seen the specific data
referenced by Representative Allard and would need to
review it in order to respond accurately. He cautioned that
Texas had numerous pension plans, including four statewide
plans and many municipal pension plans. He expressed strong
hesitation about aggregating all the Texas plans into a
single retention figure. He stated that the variations
among plans and the differing local conditions within
municipalities could each affect turnover outcomes. He
stressed that he would caution against generalizing such
data into a single number for the entire state of Texas.
Representative Allard understood that Mr. Bond had implied
Alaska was at the bottom in terms of retention. She noted
that she did not believe that statement was accurate and
asked how Mr. Bond could make the assertion without
referencing specific comparative data. She thought that he
should be more precise.
Mr. Bond responded that he had not meant to imply or
suggest that Alaska was at the bottom for retention. He
clarified that he had not conducted a state-by-state
comparison of retention across every DB plan in the
country. He would need to review extensive data before
making any statement about where Alaska ranked relative to
other states. He reiterated that his observations were
based solely on comparisons within Alaska's own data. He
clarified that retention in Alaska had declined since the
transition from DB to DC. He stressed that he was not
attempting to make determinations about Alaska's national
rank.
2:45:47 PM
Representative Johnson thought that the chart on slide 4
compared only a limited number of variables. She asserted
that the dataset was insufficient for making a
comprehensive assessment. She preferred to examine more
than a single variable and the chart did not provide
substantial information. She was interested in discovering
more about the risk and hoped the information would be
included on subsequent slides.
Mr. Bond continued to slide 5, which presented a similar
comparison chart as the previous slide, but focused on
female teachers in Alaska. The chart projected outcomes for
100 female teachers who were fully vested in their
retirement plan at age 30. He explained that the chart
projected how many additional years of service would be
expected for the 100 female teachers. Consistent with the
prior slide, the projection indicated that more female
teachers would be retained under a DB plan than under a DC
plan.
Mr. Bond proceeded to slide 6, which offered another look
at similar data and was specific to the TRS DC plan. He
explained that actuaries were required to calculate
termination rates as part of their actuarial experience
studies. He defined termination rates as the percentage of
workers expected to leave based on years of service. The
column on the left listed years of service beginning with
less than one year and increasing to five years. The chart
displayed termination rates broken out by gender, showing
the current rates used for the TRS DC plan as well as
proposed new rates that had been adopted following the
experience study. He explained that the proposed
termination rates projected higher turnover earlier in
service than the previous rates and more employees were
expected to leave earlier in their careers based on the
updated data. He asserted that the information was another
data point that suggested that actuaries expected that
retention would worsen in the future.
2:49:35 PM
Representative Johnson indicated that she was having
difficulty understanding how the chart's predictions were
developed without knowing which variables were used to
arrive at the figures. She thought that the chart did not
clearly show how the transition occurred from the original
to the proposed termination rates. She asked for
clarification on where the data could be found.
Mr. Bond responded that the link included in the slides led
to the actuarial experience study that contained the chart
in question. He stated that the actuaries explained their
methodology in the document. He explained that in Alaska,
actuaries conducted experience studies over four-year
periods and for the 2022 study, the actuaries examined the
four prior fiscal years, beginning on July 1, 2017, and
ending on June 30, 2021. The chart reflected the actual
experience of the plan during the four-year time period. He
explained that the data was compared to the actuaries'
projections to determine what was different from the
projections. He stressed that the outcomes could be better
or worse and that the actuaries were simply making note of
the differences. The data for TRS DC plans showed that
retention would be worse in the future because more
employees would leave earlier in their careers than they
had in previous years of data.
Representative Johnson remarked that there were many
variables and there had been a societal shift. Employees
were not staying in the same career for 30 years as was
common in the past. She understood Mr. Bond's perspective,
but she did not think the data was conclusive.
Mr. Bond encouraged the committee to speak with the
actuaries. The actuaries were generally eager to discuss
their analyses and explain how they arrived at their
conclusions. He added that the actuaries would also likely
be able to answer many of the specific and technical
questions that he could not answer.
2:53:24 PM
Representative Stapp remarked that he had appreciated most
of the presentation but believed the current slide [slide
6] was the weakest. He questioned what the chart was
actually depicting. He pointed out that none of the
individuals reflected in the data had been vested in any
type of retirement benefit. He expressed skepticism about
the suggestion that there would be a 50 percent increase in
the number of female employees leaving within their first
year of employment and thought it was more likely that such
early departures were related to dissatisfaction with their
supervisors than with the retirement system. He questioned
how a retirement plan could be responsible for a 31 percent
turnover rate within the first year and expressed disbelief
that such a high early departure rate could reasonably be
attributed to the lack of a DB plan.
Mr. Bond confirmed that the individuals reflected in the
chart were not vested in their benefits. He noted that even
by the fifth year of service, full vesting would have just
occurred and turnover was consistently higher in the first
five years across all DB plans. The first five years
typically involved more turnover because new employees were
assessing whether the position suited them. He acknowledged
that many employees would determine within the first one to
three years that the position was not a good fit and would
choose to leave. He agreed that the retirement plan was not
the only factor contributing to the turnover rates and that
other influences were likely at play. However, similar DB
plans in other states did not reflect comparable
termination rates. He stated that it was unusual to see 31
percent of employees leaving within one year or 21 percent
leaving after one year. The numbers suggested that the lack
of a DB plan might be contributing to the high early
turnover because employees were not being incentivized to
remain long enough to reach vesting and earn the benefit.
Representative Stapp suggested that if individuals were
leaving within the first year of employment, they would not
receive any pension benefits. He questioned how a
retirement plan could be considered a cause of early
turnover when the departing employees would not receive the
benefit regardless. He thought it would be more reasonable
to attribute a departure after five years to the pension
structure because the employees would be fully vested by
that time and eligible to retain the benefit. He stated
that he could not infer anything meaningful from that
chart.
Mr. Bond responded that someone who left a job within less
than a year would not receive the employer contributions
from a DC plan or a pension benefit because they would not
have vested in either. He stated that the relevant question
was the extent to which the presence or absence of a
pension acted as a signal to a new employee that remaining
on the job would lead to the opportunity to earn a benefit.
Alternatively, the absence of the benefit signaled that the
job would not offer any long-term retirement incentive.
2:57:20 PM
Co-Chair Schrage remarked that he could imagine a scenario
in which an employee considered quitting and was encouraged
by a supervisor to stay longer, possibly to vest in the
plan. He understood that there was a recurring assertion
that younger generations no longer valued pensions. As
someone in his early thirties, he considered himself part
of the younger generation and remained very interested in a
pension. He added that his interest was not unique, and
that others in his peer group and community expressed
strong support for pensions. He noted that even while
shopping at Costco, individuals had approached him to voice
support for pensions. Employee surveys across professions
such as public safety and education had consistently
indicated that retirement options such as pensions were
viewed as key to recruitment, retention, and workforce
development. He reiterated that based on both anecdotal
experience and the data he had reviewed, the argument that
younger individuals did not care about pensions was
inaccurate. He acknowledged that others might present
alternative data but maintained that his personal and
observed experience strongly contradicted that argument. He
clarified that his remarks were a comment rather than a
question.
Representative Allard stated that an actuarial analysis was
urgently needed. She thought it was important to evaluate
examples from other states. She noted that large numbers of
individuals had reportedly left the public sector in
California, which brought up questions about retirement
plan reform. She acknowledged Co-Chair Schrage's
experience, but she shared that she had two children in
Generation Z and members of that generation were not
focused on defined benefits or retirement planning. She
understood that younger people valued flexibility and
prioritized personal fulfillment over long-term employment
commitments. She expressed concern that requiring long-term
service to access benefits could lock individuals into
positions they did not enjoy. She emphasized that she would
not want to force anyone to remain in a job in which they
were unhappy.
Co-Chair Foster invited Representative Chuck Kopp to share
updated information on the timeline of the actuarial
analysis.
3:00:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, explained that the formal
actuarial request had already been made and it was a few
weeks out. He relayed that Chiron, a second actuary, had
also been engaged to produce the requested information. He
agreed with Representative Allard that hearing directly
from the actuary was important. He relayed that it was the
actuary's responsibility to review actual retention
experience retrospectively in order to project future
trends. The process informed the assumed return rate used
to guide financial planning and the actuary's license
depended on the accuracy of that work. He shared that the
actuary performed an annual retention study for the state.
Representative Johnson stated that when she considered her
children and their peers, many of whom were in their
twenties, she believed there was a perception that Alaska
offered a good retirement system. She explained that
although her children were not state employees, they viewed
DC plans positively and believed that state workers were
generally well-supported in terms of retirement benefits.
She questioned whether the state should be employing a form
of "golden handcuffs" by incentivizing employees to remain
in their positions for long periods of time to receive
benefits. She thought it was valid to consider whether
changes to retirement policy could help retain employees
who might otherwise leave. She emphasized that legislators
had a duty not to overextend the state financially and she
was concerned that changes to the retirement system could
increase the existing unfunded liability. She stated that
her primary considerations were the potential risks the
state might incur and if changes were truly necessary in
order to better retain workers. She appreciated the data
being presented, but it was unlikely to significantly
influence her position.
Representative Kopp appreciated Representative Johnson's
remarks regarding risk, responsibility, and the employer's
role, which were important considerations. He emphasized
that the state asked a great deal of its public employees,
including rural teachers and public safety personnel. He
stated that teachers were entrusted with the lives and
education of children and that the state had already
committed significantly to teachers by placing children in
their care. He stated that risks between employers and
employees were inherently shared. The state would be
sharing the risk with individuals like peace officers who
put their lives on the line daily. He referenced the law
enforcement and firefighter memorial in Anchorage and
encouraged others to visit and reflect on the names listed
there. He emphasized that the individuals memorialized had
taken a significant risk, and he believed Representative
Johnson recognized this as well.
Representative Kopp cautioned that if the state was not
willing to share in the risk, it needed to proceed
carefully, as public safety employees were in service to
the public. He emphasized the importance of the state's
responsibility in administering the retirement plan. He
agreed with Representative Johnson's remarks regarding
responsibility and risk but stressed that risk must be
recognized as mutual. He stated that any retirement plan or
operational service inherently involved shared risk and
that the state must remain sensitive to that reality rather
than reject options simply because some level of risk
existed.
3:06:56 PM
Representative Johnson stated that she had visited the
memorial while serving as the mayor of Palmer and that she
took the lives of all police and fire personnel very
seriously.
Representative Kopp thanked Representative Johnson and
acknowledged that he had seen her at the memorial.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that some committee members had
other commitments and would need to leave soon. He noted
that if the committee needed to bring Mr. Klouda back, he
would make arrangements, either in person or via phone. He
remarked that the presentation was only about one-third
completed and that he did not wish to rush through it or
continue it without full committee attendance.
Representative Stapp thanked Representative Kopp for the
update and stated that he would address his specific
questions regarding the actuary offline in order to
conserve time. He referenced a report by Mr. Bond titled
"Enduring Challenges: Examining the Experiences of States
that Closed Pensions" (copy on file). He thought the report
contained important information that the committee should
discuss. He asked what the difference was between
actuarially determined employer contributions and annual
required contributions to a plan.
Mr. Bond responded that the two terms essentially referred
to the same figure. He noted that while terminology had
shifted over time within the actuarial community, both
referred to the same contribution value.
Representative Stapp stated that he raised the question
because the study showed that since Alaska exited the DB
program, the state had contributed over $7 billion in
additional funds in an effort to restore plan funding
levels. According to the study, Alaska had underfunded
contributions in 10 of the past 14 years. He asked Mr. Bond
to comment.
Mr. Bond responded that the study reviewed whether the full
actuarial contribution recommended in each year had
actually been paid. He confirmed that in 10 of the 14 years
examined, the state contributed less than the full amount
recommended by actuaries.
Representative Stapp asked what amount should have been
contributed in those years to fully meet actuarial
recommendations.
Mr. Bond responded that he did not have the specific dollar
figure readily available but could provide it as a follow-
up.
Representative Stapp stated that the reason he raised the
issue was because he thought that a $7 billion discrepancy
due to actuarial underfunding was a big mistake. The
committee should be aware that the state had not
contributed the full amount that actuaries recommended,
even in addition to the employee contributions collected to
fund the plan. He highlighted that there was declining
enrollment in the DB plan and financial pressure that was
caused by capital outflows from the plan's assets. He asked
why the employee-to-retiree ratio within the plan mattered.
Mr. Bond responded that when a DB plan remained open,
meaning that new members joined each year while others
retired each year, the plan could invest with a longer time
horizon. He explained that an open DB plan allowed for a
balanced investment strategy that incorporated both risk
and safety in order to generate the returns needed to pay
future benefits. When a plan closed and ceased to admit new
members, the flow of new contributions declined due to the
lack of active participants. The shift forced the plan to
adopt a more conservative investment approach as it no
longer had new inflows to absorb short-term volatility. The
conservative investment strategy typically resulted in
lower expected returns.
3:13:06 PM
Representative Stapp asked for more information on what
would be considered a healthy ratio of active employees to
retirees in a DB plan.
Mr. Bond responded that he did not have a specific
recommended ratio but noted that the topic was addressed in
a separate report. He explained that NIRS had developed a
chart comparing the retiree to active employee ratios for
both TRS and PERS in Alaska to the ratios of public pension
systems across the U.S. In Alaska, both TRS and PERS had
approximately a 4 to 1 retiree-to-active ratio, while the
national average was approximately 0.8 to 1. He stated that
actuaries described the Alaska plans as significantly more
"mature" demographically compared to the broader public
pension landscape.
Representative Stapp thought that the demographic
information was important because it affected the rate of
return and the cash balance of the retirement plan. He
stated that such outflows posed a risk, and that his
primary concern was to properly assess the risk. He noted
that he knew many individuals who wanted a pension. He
stressed the importance of relying on accurate data. He
understood that many public employees believed Tier IV was
insufficient to meet retirement needs, particularly for
those who had not enrolled in SBS. He emphasized that it
was a critical policy conversation and the legislature
needed to make the right decision.
Mr. Bond added that all mature pension plans had negative
cash flows, but tended to be stable. However, the negative
cash flows increased in closed plans because a higher
percentage of assets of the plan were paid out, which had
an impact on the plan's investment strategy.
Representative Stapp asked if it would be fair to summarize
the situation by saying that, as the number of retirees
increased relative to active employees, it became necessary
to divert more funds in order to continue paying benefits.
He suggested that it was similar to needing to reallocate
resources from one group to another.
Mr. Bond responded that he would not describe it in those
exact terms, but generally, as the number of participants
in a plan increased and more contributions were made, the
plan had more flexibility. The flexibility included more
options for managing contributions, making investments, and
spreading risk across a broader pool of plan participants.
3:17:08 PM
Co-Chair Foster stated that the committee would adjourn, as
several members needed to attend bill hearings. He
confirmed that he would retain the question queue list for
future reference.
HB 78 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda for the
following day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:17:45 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:17 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 78 Additional Document - Buck 2023 Acctuarial Evaltions for Legacy DB.pdf |
HFIN 2/18/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 78 |
| HB 78 Additional Document - TRR Survey Results.pdf |
HFIN 2/18/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 78 |
| HB 78 Additonal Document - AMHS ADN article 02.24.25.pdf |
HFIN 2/18/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 78 |
| HB 78 Additonal Document - Workforce Profile 2024.pdf |
HFIN 2/18/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 78 |
| HB 78 - Presentation HFIN Tyler Bond NIRS 2.18.25.pdf |
HFIN 2/18/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 78 |
| HB 78 Additional Doc Enduring-Challenges.pdf |
HFIN 2/18/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 78 |
| HB 78 Additional Doc Better-Bang-for-the-Buck-.pdf |
HFIN 2/18/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 78 |
| HB 78 NIRS-Pensionomics-2025-Report-FINAL.pdf |
HFIN 2/18/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 78 |