03/03/2004 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 3, 2004
3:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Board of Marine Pilots
Robert (Tiny) Schasteen - Unalaska/Dutch Harbor
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 464
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Certified
Real Estate Appraisers."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 329
"An Act relating to retirement incentive programs for the public
employees' retirement system, the judicial retirement system,
and the teachers' retirement system; relating to separation
incentives for certain state employees; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 434
"An Act relating to the practice of naturopathic medicine; and
providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 464
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BOARD OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEG BUDGET & AUDIT
02/16/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (H) L&C
03/03/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 329
SHORT TITLE: RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MCGUIRE
05/21/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/21/03 (H) STA, L&C, FIN
01/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/13/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
01/29/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/29/04 (H) Heard & Held
01/29/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/05/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/05/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
02/17/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/17/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/19/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/19/04 (H) Moved CSHB 329(STA) Out of Committee
02/19/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/23/04 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 2DP 5NR
02/23/04 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, LYNN; NR: SEATON,
02/23/04 (H) BERKOWITZ, HOLM, COGHILL, WEYHRAUCH
02/26/04 (H) CORRECTED CS(STA) NT RECEIVED
03/03/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as chair of the Joint Committee
on Legislative Budget and Audit, which had requested HB 464.
RICK URION, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 464, but pointed
out problems he sees; discussed a proposed amendment.
STEVE TURNER, Chair
Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, spoke on his own
behalf and answered questions; agreed to provide further
direction from the board to the sponsor.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
to Representative Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced CSHB 329, Version U, on behalf
of the sponsor, Representative McGuire.
MELANIE MILLHORN, Director
Division of Retirement and Benefits
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the division has adopted a
neutral policy position with regard to HB 329, but has concerns
if there are costs to the systems, which are underfunded.
KATHY LEA, Retirement Supervisor
Division of Retirement and Benefits
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided additional information and
answered questions about HB 329.
FATE PUTMAN
Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 329, but said
ASEA would like it to apply to more employees.
CARL ROSE, Director
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 329 as a
management tool if it pencils out.
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director
Governmental and Legislative Affairs, Local 959
Alaska Teamsters
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 329, including
the proposed changes incorporated into the bill.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-24, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:25 p.m. Representatives
Anderson, Gatto, Dahlstrom, and Lynn were present at the call to
order; Representatives Crawford and Guttenberg arrived shortly
thereafter. Representative Rokeberg arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
CHAIR ANDERSON informed members that the sponsor of HB 434,
Representative Holm, had requested that dialog continue in the
subcommittee; he noted that there were concerns from the medical
community.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
^Board of Marine Pilots
Number 0102
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be to bring back the governor's nomination of Robert Schasteen
to the Board of Marine Pilots for consideration.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked whether there was any objection to
advancing Mr. Schasteen's name, which he'd held [at the 2/20/04
meeting] because he'd thought there might be a financial
conflict; he'd changed his mind after talking to [Legislative
Legal and Research Services]. While some individuals still ask
that the nomination be held, Chair Anderson suggested the need
to move it forward for debate by the full House [in a joint
session]. He pointed out that signing the form doesn't indicate
any intention to vote for or against his confirmation. In
response to a question from Representative Lynn, he said:
The marine pilots contacted me - some ... members and
some of their advocates - and said that there were
some concerns; however, I still haven't received
information. And at this stage, I have other folks
saying, "We'd ... really like you to move the name
on," particularly the governor's office, ... who
nominated him. And the question was, ... if a certain
member and association has a concern, let it be
debated on the floor. And that's fair, I think. And
there's really not precedent to hold a name the entire
session.
Number 0225
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected, saying it was until he received
more information.
CHAIR ANDERSON acknowledged the arrival of Representative
Rokeberg and brought him up to date.
CHAIR ANDERSON, in response to a question from Representative
Gatto, explained that Legislative Legal and Research Services
had said there has to be a substantive financial interest - in
the dock, in this instance. Saying it wasn't clear to him
whether there was such a level of interest, he added that he'd
spoken with the governor's office and was advised that the name
should be advanced, although it could be held before it is
brought to the [House] floor.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM noted that the committee has Mr.
Schasteen's testimony on record, surmised that he'd answered
questions truthfully, and said she felt other information that
came forward could be dealt with on the floor. She offered her
belief that it was appropriate to move the name on.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what would happen if a majority
[of committee members] didn't vote to advance the confirmation,
CHAIR ANDERSON said the report would stay in committee, and
surmised that it would be noted during the floor session that
the committee had failed to advance the name.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that if the report doesn't
move, there is no bill file to be read across.
Number 0461
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rokeberg,
Guttenberg, Gatto, Dahlstrom, and Anderson voted in favor of
advancing the confirmation of Mr. Schasteen. Representatives
Crawford and Lynn voted against it. Therefore, the confirmation
of Robert Schasteen was advanced by a vote of 5-2.
HB 464-EXTEND BOARD OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 464, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers." [HB 464 was
sponsored by the House Rules Standing Committee by request of
the Joint Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit.]
Number 0552
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as
chair of the Joint Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit.
He explained that HB 464 is the result of a legislative audit
which recommended that the Board of Certified Real Estate
Appraisers be extended into the future. The board's functions
are to set standards for appraisers in the real estate industry,
oversee examinations by which appraisers are certified, and
adopt regulations to make sure that state and federal
requirements are satisfied.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that the bill extends the board's
sunset date to June 30, 2008. He said there were no
recommendations from the legislative auditor. He apologized for
having to leave the meeting, but noted that Rick Urion or Pat
Davidson could answer questions.
CHAIR ANDERSON said he was willing to offer an amendment that
had been recommended. He asked who could speak to that.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS indicated Rick Urion or someone else from
the Division of Occupational Licensing could do so.
Number 0659
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN disclosed that he is a licensed real estate
broker in Anchorage and frequently deals with appraisers.
CHAIR ANDERSON requested that he vote on the bill nonetheless.
Number 0691
RICK URION, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED),
testified:
Basically, we don't have a problem with extending the
board. But I just want to tell you, one of the things
I've learned in my tenure as director of occupational
licensing is, one of the biggest drawbacks to
licensing has been boards - board actions or
inactions.
And I don't mean to be critical of this board or any
other board or the people who serve on these boards;
they're all good people, ... they're volunteers, and
they do good work. But when I look at the board of
real estate appraisers, I can tell you that it takes a
long time to become a real estate appraiser. There
are 187 people licensed in this state as real estate
appraisers. ... We have what we call trainee
licensees. ... For those people that are licensed as
trainees, there are very few of them that ever get to
be appraisers. And I think this board needs to look
at what it can do to help license people in Alaska.
...
There are no education courses required to become [an
appraiser] offered in Alaska. There's nothing they
can do; they can't go on the web and do it, which they
should be able to do. ... And there's lots of people
in this state that could teach courses, and I'm sure
they would be glad to, if we had some sort of program
where it said, "Hey, we want somebody to teach
courses." It would help people become licensed real
estate appraisers.
MR. URION said he'd thought about asking for only a two-year
extension, to provide a legislative boost to say, "Please come
back with a program." The board only meets once a year,
sometimes by teleconference, and he suggested perhaps a boost is
needed in order to head in a different direction. He said he
supports the bill, but wants the legislature to be aware of the
problems he sees.
Number 0830
MR. URION turned attention to the proposed amendment, which read
[original punctuation provided, but some formatting changed]:
Page 1, Line 6 insert sections:
* Sec. 2 AS 08.01.065(c) is amended to read:
(c) Except as provided in (f) - (i) of this
section, the department shall establish fee levels
under (a) of this section so that the total amount of
fees collected for an occupation approximately equals
the actual regulatory costs for the occupation. If a
board regulates more than one occupation, the
department shall establish the fee levels so that the
total amount of fees collected by that board and the
department including fines and penalties imposed in
disciplinary actions, approximately equals the total
regulatory costs of the department and the board for
all occupations regulated by that board. If the
department regulates more than one occupation under
another chapter of this title, the department shall
establish the fee levels so that the total amount of
fees collected by the department for all occupations
regulated by the department under that chapter,
including fines and penalties imposed in disciplinary
actions, approximately equals the total regulatory
costs of the department for all of those occupations.
The department shall annually review each fee level to
determine whether the regulatory costs of each
occupation are approximately equal to fee collections
related to that occupation. If the review indicates
that an occupation's fee collections and regulatory
costs are not approximately equal, the department
shall calculate fee adjustments and adopt regulations
under (a) of this section to implement the
adjustments. In January of each year, the department
shall report on all fee levels and revisions for the
previous year under this subsection to the office of
management and budget. If a board regulates an
occupation covered under this chapter, the department
shall consider the board's recommendations concerning
the occupation's fee levels and regulatory costs
before revising fee schedules to comply with this
subsection. [IN THIS SUBSECTION, "REGULATORY COSTS"
MEANS COSTS OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO
REGULATION OF AN OCCUPATION PLUS
(1) ALL EXPENSES OF THE BOARD THAT REGULATES THE
OCCUPATION IF THE BOARD REGULATES ONLY ONE OCCUPATION;
(2) THE EXPENSES OF A BOARD THAT ARE
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE OCCUPATION IF THE BOARD REGULATES
MORE THAN ONE OCCUPATION.]
*Sec. 3 AS 08.01.065(f) is amended to read:
(f). [NOTWITHSTANDING (c) OF THIS SECTION, THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL ESTABLISH FEE LEVELS UNDER (a) OF
THIS SECTION SO THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES
COLLECTED BY THE STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR
ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, AND LAND SURVEYORS
APPROXIMATELY EQUALS THE TOTAL REGULATORY COSTS OF THE
DEPARTMENT AND THE BOARD FOR ALL OCCUPATIONS REGULATED
BY THE BOARD.] The department shall set [THE] fee
levels under (a) of this section [FOR THE ISSUANCE AND
RENEWAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTATION [sic] ISSUED
UNDER AS 08.48.211] so that the fee levels are the
same for all occupations regulated by the State Board
of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land
Surveyors under AS 08.48 [BOARD].
*Sec. 4 AS 08.01.065(g) is amended to read:
(g) [NOTWITHSTANDING (c) OF THIS SECTION, THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL ESTABLISH FEE LEVELS UNDER (a) OF
THIS SECTION SO THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES
COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ALL OCCUPATIONS
REGULATED UNDER AS 08.11 APPROXIMATELY EQUALS THE
TOTAL REGULATORY COSTS OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR ALL
OCCUPATIONS REGULATED BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER AS
08.11.] the department shall set [THE] fee levels
under (a) of the section [FOR THE ISSUANCE AND RENEWAL
OF LICENSES UNDER AS 08.11] so that the fee levels are
the same for all occupations regulated by the
department under AS 08.11
*Sec. 5 AS 08.01.065(i) is amended to read:
(h) [NOTWITHSTANDING (c) OF THIS SECTION, THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL ESTABLISH FEE LEVELS UNDER (a) OF
THIS SECTION SO THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES
COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT FOR SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS, HOME
INSPECTORS, AND ASSOCIATE HOME INSPECTORS
APPROXIMATELY EQUALS THE TOTAL REGULATORY COSTS OF THE
DEPATMENT [sic] FOR THOSE THREE REGISTRATION
CATAGORIES [sic].] The department shall set [THE] fee
levels under (a) of this section [FOR THE ISSUANCE AND
RENEWAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED UNDER
08.18] so that the fee levels are the same for
specialty contractors, home inspectors, and associate
home inspectors under AS 08.18 [ALL THREE OF THESE
REGISTRATION CATAGORIES [sic]] and so that the fee
level for a home inspector with a joint registration
is not different from the fee level for a home
inspector who does not have a joint registration. In
this subsection, "joint registration" has the meaning
given in AS 08.18.171.
*Sec. 6 AS 37.05.146(c)(24) is amended to read:
(24) receipts of the Department of Community and
Economic Development under AS 08.01.065 and from civil
fines and penalties collected in license disciplinary
actions for occupations listed in AS 08.01.010 [AS
08.01.065(a), (c), and (f)].
MR. URION explained that a number of years ago, the Division of
Occupational Licensing was directed that all of its licensing
programs pay for themselves. Its accounting system is such that
whatever the total cost to license any profession is divided by
the number of people getting a license. He remarked, "We're a
self-sustaining group." He explained:
A lot of the cost in licensure is disciplinary
actions. Sometimes it's a very high cost for
disciplinary actions for the lawyers involved and all
the time involved. So that can make the cost of
licenses go up. ... And [from] our disciplinary
actions, we get fines. ... The people in the
profession are charged what it takes to get those
fines, but when the fine is collected, ... this
amendment before you will let that money be credited
to their account.
We've been doing this since the beginning of time.
But it's been pointed out to us by those legal experts
... that we shouldn't be, because it's not legal to do
that. And this merely ... makes legal what ... has
been done forever, and lets us take the fines and put
them into the pot ... toward the profession ... that
regulates that profession that paid the fine. It
looks like a long amendment, but that's simply all it
does.
Number 0940
CHAIR ANDERSON related his understanding that this changes the
procedure for fine collection for all state's boards and
commissions, not just this bill. He asked whether a fee that's
collected goes into a kitty, for example.
MR. URION replied that currently it goes into a kitty and then
is divided up. He said it's like the license fees, and the
fines will all go into that pot.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked what the alternative would be, and
how it would balance out unless that is done.
MR. URION replied that some say the fines should go into the
general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the Board of Architects,
Engineers and Land Surveyors currently has the same fees for all
three [professions].
MR. URION answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said that board has had problems in
the past with regard to wanting to raise its own fees in order
to pay for things it wants to be done. He asked whether there
had been complaints during Mr. Urion's tenure in this regard.
MR. URION said no, not that he knew of.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO conveyed his understanding that if
excessive fees were collected, they could apply to the following
year, thus lowering the cost of licenses.
MR. URION agreed that a balance is carried forward, using a two-
or three-year average; this might bring the cost of a license
down [in a given year].
Number 1143
CHAIR ANDERSON returned attention to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if this is an example of "Christmas
treeing" whereby an amendment for all licensees in the state [is
tacked] onto a bill that addresses only real estate appraisers.
MR. URION reiterated that it's a sort of a housekeeping measure
that codifies how work has been done for years and will be
absolutely nothing new.
CHAIR ANDERSON requested that Representative Rokeberg review
Sections 3-6 of the bill, in light of his legislative
experience, and make sure they are concurrent with the idea of
putting fines into an account.
Number 1258
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG concurred with the concept. He asked
how many boards and commissions would be affected by this
provision. He noted that all aren't mentioned.
MR. URION replied that 20 licensing boards would be affected.
He emphasized the need to overhaul all of the licensing statutes
at some point. He said this is a piece of that major project.
In response to further questions from Representative Rokeberg,
he said the board of real estate appraisers is an example of a
board that licenses only one occupation. He also agreed there
needs to be a title amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out what he considered key
language in subsection (c) [of the amendment], relating to
Section 2 of the bill.
Number 1435
CHAIR ANDERSON asked Mr. Urion if the committee could have the
legislative drafters provide [a formal version of] the amendment
and a title change. He committed to bringing the bill back
before the committee on Friday, March 5, 2004.
MR. URION agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked about the validity of previous
appraisals done by an appraiser who is subsequently sanctioned
by the board. Can a complaint nullify an appraisal?
Number 1522
STEVE TURNER, Chair, Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers,
said he was speaking on his own behalf and noted that he has
been an appraiser for the past 27 years. He answered
Representative Gatto's question as follows:
In our view, one bad appraisal is one bad appraisal.
It doesn't negate the other work any more than a
physician ... makes a surgical error on one patient,
and all of his other patients that he's done surgery
on ... have been permanently injured in some way. So
it's somewhat the same way. ... His other ...
appraisals may be just fine.
The state has, on a number of occasions, investigated;
in fact, even now I have an ongoing ... review of one
appraiser's work because of mistakes they found in
some of his work. So ... they do random samplings ...
to see that he's [doing] a good job.
Number 1580
MR. TURNER turned to the bill itself and said:
The governor had his Conference of Alaskans, where he
turned to the citizens of the state to provide input
into the state's current fiscal crisis. And I think
state boards serve that same function. We are a
resource available to the state. And this board
serves at no cost. At the last meeting, I got an $11
check from the state, and parking cost me [$]10 and I
bought my own lunch. And it was an all-day meeting.
And we take our job seriously. We, in fact, in the
last two years, have revised a number of regulations
addressing distance education and online education.
And we serve at the request of the governor, and we
are volunteers who want to do a good job for the
state. And I think it's a resource that should ...
continue to be utilized.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted a letter in the file from Mr.
Turner regarding licensure versus certification.
MR. TURNER said that's the response to the audit. He said the
office had determined that there were references to "licensed
appraisers", when it's actually "certified". He remarked that
it's "a bit of a complication in the sense that ... we certainly
function under the licensing laws of the state," but said the
technical term for licensing appraisers in this state is
"certification", which comes from the federal guidelines because
there is some federal oversight as to how states set up their
regulations. Explaining that there are two categories of
appraisers - "licensed" and "certified" - he said:
It was determined when this law was written - and I
wasn't part of that process - that they would just go
with the certification of appraisers, rather than
licensing, because it was a higher standard. And
rather than have two standards out there, one lower
than the other, ... they just settled on the
certification ... terminology.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this caused problems or was
simply a case of lack of consistency in the statute.
MR. TURNER offered his belief that it was just a lack of
consistency.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the board wants an
amendment to the statute.
MR. TURNER said he couldn't speak for the board, but when he'd
brought it up to the board, they were supportive of changing the
terminology in the statute to "certification". "But we were
cautioned that that was (indisc.) with the law, and that we
should maybe find a Representative who would propose that for
us," he added. "So maybe this is the time."
Number 1734
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed it is the time, but expressed the
need to know what the board wants. He suggested that the board
be polled, for example.
MR. TURNER answered, "Technically, because of ex parte
communications, I don't know how far I can go with this. I do
know that we discussed this and we were in agreement with the
change." Acknowledging this caught him off guard, he suggested
that the terminology be changed as the audit recommends.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked Mr. Turner to analyze it, talk to the board
members, and then contact Representative Samuels' office. He
read from page 16 of the audit, which stated in part:
During our review of the board's composition, we noted
AS 08.87.010 requires two of the board members to be
"licensed" real estate appraisers in the State of
Alaska.
In the statutes, real estate appraisers are referred
to as being certified, but state law does not use the
term licensed. We encourage the department, when
proposing sunset extension legislation, to consider
amending AS 08.87.010 and make the nomenclature
consistent within the statute.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked, "Is that something that we should do now?"
MR. TURNER answered that if he met with the board, they would
just be addressing that issue. "And we did agree that that
change should occur," he added.
CHAIR ANDERSON again asked Mr. Turner to look into it and get
back to Representative Samuels.
Number 1829
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that the statute could provide
that "certification of licensure" and "certification" are
interchangeable for purposes of qualifying for federal loans,
for example.
MR. TURNER pointed out that it's a different set of educational
standards, however.
CHAIR ANDERSON indicated he'd provided a note to Representative
Samuels requesting a committee substitute or amendment with a
sectional analysis and title change for the committee to look
at. He said on its face, he supports it, but it would be nice
to have the sectional analysis.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that HB 464 would be held over.
HB 329-RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 329, "An Act relating to retirement incentive
programs for the public employees' retirement system, the
judicial retirement system, and the teachers' retirement system;
relating to separation incentives for certain state employees;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 1905
CHAIR ANDERSON moved to adopt CSHB 329, Version 23-LS1109\U,
Craver, 3/3/04, as a work draft. Hearing no objection, he
announced that Version U was before the committee.
Number 1915
HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, Alaska
State Legislature, spoke on behalf of Representative McGuire,
sponsor. He referred to Version Q [CSHB 329(STA)], saying there
are two substantive policy changes. The first is on page 2,
lines 16-23, in particular, lines 18-21. He explained that in
addition to the requirement that someone be a Tier I employee,
this further restricts the proposed retirement incentive program
[RIP] to employees who have 20 years of service and are 50 years
of age; the one [differentiation] is with regard to peace
officers and fire fighters, lines 20-21. He remarked, "Because
they are a 20-and-out system, we went ahead and made that
provision at 17 years of service." He continued:
Similar comments have been made with regard to the TRS
[Teachers' Retirement System] members, the teachers.
And I believe that the sponsor would have no objection
to making, also, an appropriate change, either in this
committee ... or prior to being heard in [the House
Finance Committee]. But that was simply an oversight.
... We were including a general blanket policy - 20
years of service and 50 years of age - as a way to
further mitigate concerns that [the Division of]
Retirement and Benefits has expressed with respect to
the actuarial soundness of this program. There is
concern about ... unusually young people retiring and
the long-term effects on the actuarial soundness. So
that was an attempt to address that.
Number 2005
MR. HILYARD drew attention to page 3, lines 21-22, Version U,
subsection (d), with regard to all the sections discussing the
indebtedness rates. He noted that it says, "plus an appropriate
share of the administrative costs of the program." He remarked
that in addition to the indebtedness rates, the respective
employees will pay an appropriate share of the administrative
costs of the program - basically, the cost to administer the
program "at the Department of Administration and [Division of]
Retirement and Benefits level." He said this was added after
[CSHB 329(L&C), in Version U].
MR. HILYARD highlighted two amendments added in the House State
Affairs Standing Committee [thus included in CSHB 329(STA)] that
the sponsor wholly concurred with and that he said ultimately
make the bill better. He first pointed out page 8 of Version U,
lines 23-27; noting that this amendment was made by
Representative Gruenberg, Mr. Hilyard said the respective
retirement systems or boards can stop the RIP if it begins to
threaten the actuarial soundness. He then referred to [page 12,
lines 7-9], credited Representative Weyhrauch, and said, "We
wanted to make it clear that in no way would this ... retirement
incentive program threaten the benefits currently received by
those individuals ... who are already under retirement."
Number 2079
MR. HILYARD, in reply to questions from Representative Rokeberg,
said this whole bill is only for Tier I employees in either [TRS
or the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)]. The
statutory reference is on page 2, lines 16-17 [AS 14.25.110].
He explained:
As we've been working on this bill, both through the
interim and during the session, having conversations
with the Department of Administration and [Division
of] Retirement and Benefits, our deep concern was to
offer a retirement incentive program that would be of
value to state agencies, municipalities, and school
districts and that ultimately ... would yield the
greatest cost savings.
There's been some concern expressed by, particularly,
school districts that ... allowing some of the more
senior Tier IIs to be included might decimate the ...
experienced teacher levels to such an extent that it
would be problematic. And so that's one of the
reasons why we wanted to make it Tier I only,
particularly for the school districts.
Number 2185
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked why there are two separate dates -
July 1, 1990 and July 1, 1986 - on page 2, lines 16-17.
MR. HILYARD replied that AS 14.25.110 refers to options under
the TRS system, for which the Tier I cutoff date is July 1,
1990; AS 39.35.370 refers to options under the PERS system [for
which the Tier I cutoff date is July 1, 1986].
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referred to page 3 [line 22], "plus an
appropriate share of the administrative costs of the program."
He asked if that [share] has been calculated.
MR. HILYARD pointed out that there was a fiscal note from the
Department of Administration regarding the overall cost of
administering the program, but he couldn't say exactly what an
individual's share would be. Noting that a reasonable estimate
could be extrapolated, however, he said approximately 1,800
people retired under the 1989 program; to the best of his
knowledge, about 1,200 retired under the 1996 RIP. He added:
Our overall point here was, the employer also has to
pay ... the actuarial adjustment. And so, in order to
mitigate the Department of Administration's fiscal
note and perhaps, hopefully, zero that out, our intent
was to suggest that in deciding whether or not to opt
in to the retirement ... program, ... employees would
have to consider that factor as well. ...
I have a spreadsheet that was included in your packet
from Melanie Millhorn, from [the Division of]
Retirement and Benefits, and there was a number, ...
administrative costs, that cited something to the
effect of $300-and-some-odd and change as an
administrative cost; I believe that's an actuarial
adjustment, but that was roughly our idea, ...
something in that neighborhood in terms of the overall
... cost to the individual employee who might elect
... to retire under the retirement incentive program.
So we're not looking for exorbitant numbers. We are
simply trying to mitigate the cost to the Department
of Administration.
Number 2280
[Chair Anderson handed the gavel to Vice Chair Gatto.]
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if people taking advantage of
the RIP would be penalized by having to pay a higher cost to
retire early than they'd have paid otherwise, and whether the
administrative costs were [the only additional costs].
MR. HILYARD suggested either Ms. Millhorn or Ms. Lea from the
Division of Retirement and Benefits could answer that better,
but said, "At least our intent, and the way I read the current
language, is that this would just cover any additional costs as
a result of applying for the RIP itself."
VICE CHAIR GATTO posed the question of whether the forgiveness
equals the penalty, and whether any difference is large or
small.
MR. HILYARD said he couldn't answer that, noting that this
provision about the administrative fee had just been added in
Version U and that he hadn't had a chance to closely look at the
figures.
Number 2370
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD recalled bills in the House State
Affairs Standing Committee the last couple of years in response
to a [shortage of teachers].
TAPE 04-24, SIDE B
Number 2345
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked whether there's a surplus now. He
told of a state trooper who retired under a RIP but has worked
every year since then as a state trooper. He asked where the
savings is, if that's the case.
MR. HILYARD responded that those concerns have been mentioned
before, and that the Matanuska-Susitna ("Mat-Su") School
District has been one of the most vocal school districts about
wanting this RIP, but also somewhat mindful of the long-term
effects of a lack of qualified people to replace those who
either take normal retirement or would retire early under this
bill. He said:
We've made a specific provision under Section 10,
which begins on page [9, lines 24-28] ... with regard
to reemployment, particularly of teachers to school
districts: ... "the individual may accept employment
with a school district as a substitute teacher" - and
that was for all individuals; then, to go on further,
"an individual who participated in the teachers'
retirement system may accept employment with a school
district if the employment is on an hourly basis and
does not entitle the individual to receive retirement,
health, or leave benefits."
And our intent there was not necessarily to encourage
teachers - retirees, if you will - to "double dip,"
but to provide an opportunity, in the event that after
these individuals RIPed out, ... the school district
would not be left in the lurch for an indeterminate
period of time without not only more seasoned or
experienced educators, but educators in general.
Number 2280
MR. HILYARD continued:
So, our intent was to say, "We want to offer this as a
management tool that will attempt to allow you to
reduce personnel costs [and] at the same time, offer
you a small loophole ... as it applies particularly to
substitute teaching and then those teachers that want
to come back in unspecified positions on an hourly,
contractual basis, to fill potential, temporary gaps."
So our intent there was to provide an opportunity for
any school districts to rehire ... their individuals
at reduced personnel costs.
Now, there has been some discussion of that
constituting double dipping, and I understand the
general concern. However, in particular, Mat-Su has
expressed that this RIP would be particularly
beneficial to them ... for reduction of personnel
costs; at the same time, they've said, "Well, we are
somewhat concerned about our ability to find
appropriate substitutes or to rapidly fill those
positions vacated by RIPed teachers." So, we made a
creative policy decision to try to address both of
those issues.
Number 2234
VICE CHAIR GATTO added that Mat-Su had an undesirable experience
during the last RIP: it paid to have teachers retire early;
discovered that it needed them back; and was prevented by the
RIP from rehiring them. He said this clause eliminates that
"prevention" and allows an opportunity for them to come back.
He said he hadn't heard of an hourly contract, and expressed
concern about contractual language such as an agreement with a
union that might preclude hiring teachers "permanently as a
substitute."
MR. HILYARD reported that this particular change was recommended
by Robert Doyle, head of the Matanuska-Susitna School District;
he said, however, that this creative policy decision could
potentially benefit a number of school districts throughout the
state. He pointed out that it is each school district's
decision as to whether to offer a RIP to its employees. He
noted that some school districts have remained silent as to
whether they'd offer it; some have said, given their fiscal
scenarios, it is unlikely they will; and the general consensus
he's heard from the senior levels of administration from various
school districts seems generally supportive of having another
option for managerial decisions. As an additional check, he
said, the commissioner of [the Department of] Administration has
final authority with regard to whether to accept plans that are
proposed to the department, for example, if a plan is predicted,
upon review, to cause more long-term damage than it's worth.
VICE CHAIR GATTO added, "That's why they have a financial
officer who will run the numbers, do the math, and decide
whether that's good or not good for the district. We'll leave
it ... in their hands to make that decision."
Number 2088
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether the legislature has any
hourly employees now.
MR. HILYARD said he didn't know, but could find out.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether this program leaves out
any group or subset from the possibility of "RIPing" and then
returning on an hourly or contractual basis.
MR. HILYARD replied that the only reemployment option that was
limited in any way was referred to on page 9, lines 26-28
[quoted above], which says someone who participated in TRS may
accept unemployment in the school district on an hourly basis.
He continued:
Now, with respect to being reemployed as a substitute,
that would apply to anyone who RIPed who was eligible
under that school district's provisions to be a
substitute. For instance, some school districts ...
may not require a college degree, whereas others do.
Now, that's a different provision. But this says, not
including whatever restrictions an individual school
district may have, if you've RIPed under this, you are
still eligible to be a substitute teacher.
My understanding is, all the other ... exemptions
apply to anyone who would take this retirement
incentive program, with the exception of that hourly
contractual basis for school districts.
Number 2038
VICE CHAIR GATTO remarked:
Just a thought: if you have a teacher that RIPed
under a previous program, in that statute they are not
allowed to return. Now we have a teacher - and it
doesn't address this individual statute, but an
individual who participated in a teacher retirement
system, without mentioning any specific one - may
accept [reemployment] with the school district. So I
have this conflict that this allows a teacher, without
reference to which retirement system they RIPed from,
to be reemployed, while the previous statute prevents
the teacher from being reemployed under the previous
statute.
MR. HILYARD said he doesn't think that's the case. He referred
to page 8 [Section 10], continuing to page 9, line 3, and
mentioned AS 39.35, AS 14.25, and AS 14.40.661. He read from
page 9, line 3, "after appointment to retirement under this
Act", which relates to forfeiture of the incentive credit. He
offered his belief that the language all the way down applies
only to people who retire under this particular RIP.
VICE CHAIR GATTO replied, "So, these teachers are reemployable
and the previous teachers are not." He suggested it would be
nice to decide to reemploy teachers that had retired under [any]
RIP, rather than classify them in separate groups.
MR. HILYARD related his understanding that then-Representative
and now-Senator [Gary] Stevens had a similar bill in both
Houses, but said he doesn't know what happened with it. He said
he'd talked to [Senator Stevens'] office briefly about some of
the language therein, and believes that was his intent.
VICE CHAIR GATTO suggested there might be a conceptual amendment
offered in that regard. He called on Ms. Millhorn.
Number 1926
MELANIE MILLHORN, Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits,
Department of Administration, testified that the division had
adopted a neutral policy position with regard to HB 329, but has
concerns if there would be costs to the system. She pointed out
that PERS and TRS are underfunded: for 2003, PERS has
approximately a $2.9 billion shortfall, with a funding ratio of
75 percent; and TRS has a $1.4 billion shortfall, with a funding
ratio of 68 percent. Noting that the funding ratio compares
assets to liabilities, she said the funding target is 100
percent.
Number 1845
VICE CHAIR GATTO asked what needs to be done to get to 100
percent someday.
MS. MILLHORN replied, "We have to look at the employer
contribution rates; ... the employers are ultimately responsible
to bring up the short-funded status." In further response, she
expressed hope that it would take less than [10 years].
Mentioning talking to [the House Finance Committee and Senate
Finance Committee], she added, "We have been through two cycles
in a 25-year period of being in funded ratios where we are
presently."
MS. MILLHORN explained the two fiscal notes [both dated
February 13, 2004]. The first, number 5, addresses operational
costs to the system. It was prepared looking at the 1996-1999
costs to the division and at the staffing levels necessary to
administer the RIP for that three-year period: $742,000 for
FY 05 [fiscal year 2005], $569,000 for FY 06, and $569,000 for
FY 07. She said:
Those figures are based on PERS-eligible retirees, and
there were 1,359 that retired between '96 and '99 for
PERS. And for TRS, there were 850. So based on ...
Mr. Hilyard's testimony, I think we may need to redo
this fiscal note after we look at the further
narrowing and limitation of the actual population who
may be eligible.
Number 1737
MS. MILLHORN addressed the second fiscal note, number 4,
relating to the cost to employers. She explained that [Mercer
Human Resource Consulting ("Mercer"), the actuarial consultant,
looked at the entire "universe" of the population; at what those
costs would be, given the three-year credit; and what those
costs would have been when compared with "if the person ...
would have received those otherwise, if eligible." Thus for an
eligible PERS employee, the employer would have to be able to
support about $98,000 in savings. For TRS, it's a little
higher, about $120,000 over a three-year period.
Number 1666
MS. MILLHORN, in response to a question from Vice Chair Gatto,
brought attention to testimony by Bob Reynolds [of Mercer] in a
House State Affairs Standing Committee hearing, where she'd
taken notes in order to explain the actuarial process. She said
Mr. Reynolds had testified that for this fiscal note, the
estimated value of the benefits to be provided under HB 329 were
compared with the value of the benefits the member expected to
be eligible to receive in the absence of HB 329. Looking at the
incremental costs of the proposed legislation, she said they'd
noted that for PERS, it is $786,000,000 for 8,008 eligible
members; for TRS, it is $431,000,000. If the actual universe of
who is eligible is divided by the actual cost, it results in
$98,000 for PERS members and $120,000 for TRS members.
MS. MILLHORN also noted that Jack Kreinheder [of the Office of
Management & Budget], who was involved with the legislation for
the 1996-1999 RIP, had testified that the average cost to the
employer was $28,000. However, she said the cost for this
proposed RIP is significantly higher because of increased costs
for benefits. That includes a change in the year 2000 from
using the 1984 mortality tables to using the 1994 tables,
resulting in 2.7 years of extra benefits for each recipient.
Furthermore, the "health care trend" was changed in 2002 from "a
trend analysis," an increase of 7.5 to 12 percent. She reported
that those costs are reflected in the second fiscal note, to
which Mercer has attached its actuarial analysis.
VICE CHAIR GATTO asked: If the employee says there will be
$60,000 in savings over a three-year period, but the employer
sees that it will cost $120,000, could the employer say the
employee must make up the other $60,000 in some manner?
MS. MILLHORN replied that the employer has a number of options,
including eliminating a position, but would have to be able to
demonstrate the $120,000 in savings.
VICE CHAIR GATTO surmised that if a teacher retired early and
returned immediately as a substitute teacher, significant
savings could be demonstrated.
Number 1511
KATHY LEA, Retirement Supervisor, Division of Retirement and
Benefits, Department of Administration, replied, "That wouldn't
be able to happen." She explained that a member cannot return
to what is normally a TRS-participating position as an hourly
employee for more than one school year. The teacher could be
issued a long-term substitute-teaching contract for up to one
school year, but if it exceeds that, it's a permanent position
and the RIP penalties apply.
MS. MILLHORN acknowledged that it would behoove her division to
prepare new fiscal notes based on [Version U] and the further
limitation.
VICE CHAIR GATTO agreed to the necessity of that.
Number 1454
MS. LEA, in response to a question from Representative
Guttenberg, said each employer would calculate savings
individually; in general, though, hiring someone in a
nonpermanent or contract position isn't considered in [the
calculation] unless the employer was looking at eliminating the
position and then having a temporary contract person take it.
She said the key to contract or hourly work is that it cannot be
in a position that normally participates in the retirement
systems. It's more temporary in nature. She added, "In a
personal services contract arrangement, we would look at whether
or not there still is an employee-employer relationship, in
other words, if the person ... has other clients, or are they
really an employee."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked, then, if the savings to the
employer come mainly from eliminating positions, rather than
hiring someone else at lower pay. He asked whether this will
only work if those public employee or teacher employee positions
are eliminated.
MS. MILLHORN replied:
You are correct. That is what we believe would be the
circumstance now for this RIP legislation, as compared
to the '96-'99, because the employer cost at that
point was $28,000. So the employer had vastly more
flexibility in a couple of different things. Either
they could reclassify the position downward, thereby
having a cost savings; they could leave it vacant for
a period of time and then refill. So they have many
more options to actually find that cost savings.
Now, with the high cost of almost 100,000 or 120,000
[dollars], we believe it has very much narrowed those
opportunities, to the extent that you would almost
have to delete the position ... in many instances -
not all, but normally speaking, your discretion to
reclassify a position downward may not offset your
ability to actually demonstrate the cost savings; it
may not pencil out.
Number 1247
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked Ms. Millhorn whether she sees a
lot of areas where teachers or public employees can be laid off.
MS. MILLHORN said she wasn't certain and hasn't heard of a
surplus, but has heard there are highly compensated individuals;
in those instances, employers would like to be relieved of the
personal services costs and be able to bring in lower-cost
personnel.
Number 1202
VICE CHAIR GATTO said he thinks the RIP is a great idea. He
asked whether Ms. Millhorn could submit a new fiscal note by
[March 5, 2004].
MS. MILLHORN replied that it took Mercer almost a week to
recalculate the last one, she thought it would take that long
again, and she didn't think that target could be met.
Number 1133
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about analyses of the past RIPs'
savings and costs.
MS. MILLHORN referred to audit control number 024404-91, dated
November 1991, prepared for the RIP in 1989. She said the
comments in the audit report, prepared by the Division of
Legislative Audit, indicate that while it appears the RIP was
able to realize the savings, caveats in the back of the audit
indicate that the cost savings in some instances were not
actually realized. She explained:
Certain things can happen. You can project a cost
savings and say that the position would be eliminated,
but three years after, you could recreate the position
and the person could come back. So, the initial
realized savings that you were projecting then ...
could go away. And there were those kinds of
instances, so that's why there are some caveats in the
very back of this audit report that indicate that
those cost savings are somewhat elusive. And because
there's not a subsequent, actual case-by-case to see
later ... if those savings were realized, ... that was
problematic.
And we have not, as a division, gone back to, say, the
RIP legislation for '96-'99 and ... looked at what the
projected savings were by the different departments
and then said, "OK, ... they are projected to be
savings and they look like savings, but through the
system are they actually still savings?" And that's
... not known to us, because we never did an analysis
thereafter to see what happened.
Number 0963
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the fiscal note
indicates this could cost the state $1.1 billion. He emphasized
the difference between the projected costs for the prior program
and this one, from $28,000 to [$120,000]. He said [Ms.
Millhorn's] testimony indicates to him that without laying
people off or eliminating positions, savings couldn't be
achieved and thus the objective of the bill will be a failure
without eliminating positions. He asked if that's a fair
statement.
MS. MILLHORN replied that on a case-by-case basis, there are far
fewer opportunities for an employer to do something other than
eliminate the position.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if a logical conclusion is that
the only way to achieve savings is to reduce the number of
Tier I teachers in the state. He said during the previous RIP
the objective was to replace [personnel] at lower wages so that
there wouldn't be positions eliminated, but would be a savings
in the overall job costs.
Number 0811
VICE CHAIR GATTO asked, if [teaching] positions are eliminated,
whether there is any way to avoid increasing class sizes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG also asked what amount the employee had
to contribute to retire early.
MS. MILLHORN indicated Representative Rokeberg was correct in
his analysis of her testimony. In response to further
questions, she referred to page 3 and said the teacher would pay
25.9 percent of compensation for the school year. The
employer's cost for PERS is $100,000, and for TRS it's $120,000.
She said in the last RIP there was teacher indebtedness of
approximately $14,000 to $18,000, but noted that this bill also
assigns [the teacher] an appropriate share of the administrative
cost; thus it would be higher.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised a figure of $20,000 and asked
whether it's a one-time payment.
MS. MILLHORN said yes. It can be done by making payments; by
taking an actuarial reduction in benefits; or by a combination,
using leave to pay for the actual cost.
Number 0648
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about prepaying some of these
obligations if the bill is implemented, and whether that would
reduce future obligations.
MS. MILLHORN answered that this program is designed to be cost-
neutral to the system, with employers paying for their costs and
employees paying for their costs. However, there are caveats,
shown in the fiscal note as prepared by Mercer; it indicates in
the analysis on page 2 that the RIP was designed to be cost-
neutral under the actuarial assumptions and methods presently in
use, and that while these assumptions are best estimates, future
changes such as improvements in longevity or higher-than-
anticipated medical-cost increases may affect the ultimate cost-
neutrality of the program.
MS. MILLHORN reiterated her example about how mortality tables
were changed in 2000. She added that the system is designed to
collect all costs at the point at which a person is appointed to
retirement, but when these kinds of changes happen actuarially,
they don't allow for that necessary collection. In response to
a further question, she said, "I believe that they are using
those actuarial assumptions in place right now, which have been
adopted, which is a 12 percent increase in the next seven
years."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how much it will cost to have
Mercer produce another fiscal note.
MS. MILLHORN replied that it is very expensive, $400 an hour at
a minimum. She offered to find out more information.
Number 0336
FATE PUTMAN, Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA), noted
that ASEA is the general government unit of state employees. He
testified in support of HB 329 in its present form, but said his
organization would like to see it applicable to all employees,
regardless of tier status, although age-eligibility could be
applied. Indicating his organization first proposed the idea of
a RIP, he noted that government is downsizing and said his
organization sought a method to allow the high-end employees to
retire and be replaced by new hires, rather than using a "last
hired, first fired" approach. He said [ASEA] thought the best
way to approach this would be to allow anyone eligible for
retirement [in any tier] to participate, which is how the
legislation began. He said he understands about the fiscal
constraints and limitations, but would also support widening the
universe of employees that this program would apply to.
VICE CHAIR GATTO asked whether there'd been an indication that
Tier II employees might be taken care of in a different bill.
MR. PUTMAN said no.
Number 0173
CARL ROSE, Director, Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB),
testified:
We support this legislation. ... Our initial testimony
on this bill was that we wanted to ensure that the
fund was solvent; we wanted to assure that no one
would be adversely affected. And we agree with this
having to be shown a savings would be made.
What I've heard here today tells me that the economy
is having a tremendous impact on what will and will
not pencil out. And I would share with you, in the
case of your district in Mat-Su, according to
testimony in the last committee, ... about 50 percent
of their employees were eligible for this. And I
would have to say that if you were to pencil out a
large number of those people taking advantage of this
RIP, it would probably work for them.
In other areas of the state, it may not pencil out
because of the competition that's going to be created
to have to replace these people. So we still support
the bill as an option, as a management tool, if it
pencils out. ... If solvency cannot be attained, if
cost savings cannot be realized, ... we need to pencil
that out and see if it works for us. If it can't
work, the commissioners are going to have to give the
approval, and the overall plan has to be ...
actuarially sound.
MR. ROSE concluded by saying he understands that the economics
are such that it's going to be very expensive for employees and
more expensive for employers.
TAPE 04-25, SIDE A
Number 0001
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director for Governmental and Legislative
Affairs, Local 959, Alaska Teamsters, testified in support of
HB 329, including the proposed changes that have been
incorporated into the bill. She said she would echo the last
two speakers, and views this bill as a proactive management tool
in a time when many public-sector employees, including those in
municipalities, could be impacted. She asked: "If it is cost-
effective, why not lay it on the table?" She requested it move
from committee.
VICE CHAIR GATTO announced that testimony was concluded and
thanked participants. He noted that HB 329 would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|