Alaska Legislature: House Finance - April 29, 2026 1:30pm

Okay, I'll go ahead and call this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order and let the record reflect that the time is currently 1:38 PM on Wednesday, April 29th, 2026. And present today, we've got Representative Allard, Representative Stepp, Representative Moore, Representative, uh, Co-Chair Josephson. Representative Tomaszewski, Representative Hannon, and myself, Co-Chair Foster. And just a reminder, folks can mute their cell phones. We also have with us Representative Galvin.

And let's see here, before we start, let's see. Oh, we do have one, one bill on the agenda today, and that is House Bill 210. That is the Peace Officers and Firefighters Disability Bill. And we did hear the bill 3 times. We've taken invited testimony.

We've reviewed the fiscal notes. We have received 6 amendments for the bill. And I'm just going to take a brief at ease. We also have with us Representative Bynum. And I'm going to take a brief at ease.

We'll be taking up amendments. But first, what I'd like to do is just get a brief recap. Of the bill from Ms. Julia O'Connor, staff to Representative Kopp. And then after that, we'll go into amendments. But I'll take a brief recess just to let the remainder of our folks join us.

And we also have here Representative Jimmy. And so looks like we've got one person, so we'll take a brief recess and see if we can I think we're okay. So with that, we also have with us Representative Kucher-Schraggi and Ms. Julia O'Connor. If you could put yourself on the record and give us a recap of the bill. Thank you.

For the record, Julia O'Connor, staff to Representative Kopp. HB 210 updates Alaska's occupational disability benefits for peace officers and firefighters who are permanently injured in the line of duty. The bill increases the benefit from 40% to 75% of their salary after the first 12 months of being on disability. This change applies to both current and future recipients and is intended to provide more adequate income replacement for a small group of public safety employees facing career-ending, ending injury. Thanks.

Okay, real good. And so if we don't have any questions, we can jump right into the amendment process here. Representative Josephson. Could we have an at ease to— if I could have 2 to 3 minutes just to look at— I've looked at these, but I'd like to look at them a little bit more. Sure.

And if you need a little more time, take your time. So with that, we'll take brief at ease at 1:41 PM. Thank you.

Wahoo!

Okay, we'll call this meeting the House Finance Committee back to order at 1:47 PM on Wednesday, April 29th. And, um, just want to check again to see if we have any questions for the sponsor before we jump into amendments. I don't see any. So with that, we do have 6 amendments. I do also want to note that we have floor at 3 o'clock, so Assuming that remains, then we will shoot to be out of here by about 2:55 p.m. That gives us just over an hour.

So first amendment, Representative Hannan, would you like to move your amendments? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move amendment 1. I'll object for purpose of discussion. Representative Hannan.

Okay. Amendment 1 does two things. It broadens the classification for who is eligible for the disability under this. Under occupationally disabled from beyond just peace officers and firefighters to other state employees who are occupationally disabled. So whether you're a lineman or you're a ferry worker injured on the boat or one of our pilots or DNR employee, if you are occupationally disabled, the disability benefits in this bill would apply to you.

Secondly, it extends the healthcare coverage for those who are disabled to the entire class of folks who are disabled under it, making them eligible for our retiree disability. I think the big problem in our healthcare coverage, or lack thereof, currently without this amendment is that when the Tier 4 system came into place, we knew that disability and healthcare structure was incomplete and The legislative record talks about us coming back to fix it, but we never did that. So 20 years in, we have Tier 4 employees who lose access to their healthcare after they have a career-ending injury when they probably have some of the most substantial healthcare needs. This amendment would close what has been created as that gap by making employees eligible for the retiree major medical insurance. And that would guarantee a continuous healthcare coverage from career-ending disability into their new status as a retiree.

The, the Retiree Medical Trust is overfunded and financially strong. The amendment utilizes the existing Healthy System. It does not create a new liability structure from scratch. The population of people that are covered is narrow. It is not a very large disabled population of state employees.

It is a target— targeted manageable cost with high return and stability and fairness for our employees. And I would urge your support of Amendment 1. Okay. And just for the record, would like to note that we also have with us Representative Cobb and Representative Stepp. Question?

Yeah. Thank you, co-chair. If it were permission, I kind of like to ask a quick question to the maker of the amendment before I make some comments. So this is a fairly substantial change to the underlying bill. I would like to know if there's actuarial analysis on what it would look like to add the retirees to healthcare and also add all public employees to the extension.

Obviously there's a substantial, massive increase in potential employees under own occupation disability. If you expound the scope of that to the chair. Sure. Representative Kopp, on Amendment Number 1 by Representative Hannan, do you have any comments in terms of Representative Stepp's question? Yes, so first of all, I appreciate the spirit of the amendment.

To Representative Stapp's question, what is the number of employees that this would affect and consequently the actuarial cost? We currently have 37 total employees in the— on disability, whether it's occupational or non-occupational. So we're not talking about a large group of employees. Of those that are public safety, 16 are public safety. 21 Are non-public safety.

My thought is obviously defer to the will of the committee. I don't want anything to hurt the underlying bill. I'm very concerned about peace officers, firefighters making these corrective behaviors. But I would say that We do know the total number of employees based on actual participants in the system, including everybody, is very small. 37 To be exact.

Representative Stau. Yeah, uh, folgt Mr. Kocher. Just to clarify, I was actually asking the maker of the amendment, though I appreciate the bill sponsor— no, it's okay— appreciate the bill sponsor's question. And it's really two parts. So it's the expansion of not who's currently on disability, it's total employees that would benefit from the plan.

So the way I read the amendment, it asks two questions. One is to expand just from peace officers and firefighters in terms of the disability to all public employees. And the second one is the healthcare portion. Healthcare portion, that's the actuarial question because that's kind of a big change in the underlying bill. So is there an actuarial review of what that would look like if we were to do that through the chair?

Representative Pannin. Representative Foster, I, I believe maybe I articulated incorrectly. It is not giving healthcare to all state employees, only those who are disabled. And we know the scope of that of 37. And no, I don't have separate actuarial, but we do know that this— that our healthcare systems, I think, are funded at 120 and 117% of total.

So, but it would expand. The original bill only covered the 16 public safety. This would add in those other 21 people who are disabled. For the financial, they had to be occupationally disabled, but the healthcare covers them. Yeah.

Representative Staff. Yeah, just a quick follow-up. Mr. Kuchar, so it also covers any future employee that would be disabled and it would be open to everyone, correct? Through the chair. Representative Hannan.

For healthcare, correct? For those who are disabled into the retiree system. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

In the queue I have Representative Bynum and then Moore. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the Chair, I appreciate the member from Juneau bringing this forward. I had very similar amendments to do this.

I believe when we look at the program as a whole, this is a disability program specifically for PERS employees, whether they are in DC or DB, it covers them. I feel like that if we were making changes to the program, we should be making changes to the program for all impacted employees. For clarification, my understanding is, is that currently right now all employees that are in defined benefits tiers are already covered for their health insurance. The health insurance portion is only to extend that health coverage to an employee that's under defined contribution. And do we know how many of the 30— was it 36 or so folks that are in the disability right now fall under the category of Tier 4 or TERS 3?

Representative Kopp. Through the Chair, Representative Chuck Kopp, for the record. My team member, Ms. Julia O'Connor, will answer that question. For the record, Julia O'Connor, staff to Rep. Kopp, through the Chair. Yes, so there are 16 members that are disabled that are in the DC plan.

So that means 21 members already have healthcare. So that is who this is affecting. And to split that up, there's 12 public safety members and then so like 4 non-public safety members. So it would be 16 folks that this would be covering. Thank you.

Representative Bynum. Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I strongly support this amendment. I think that it's foundational for the program for disability coverage that we should be covering all of our employees. Fire and police, absolutely, wholly agree.

But I think that this is a broader program in general and is a good amendment that I will support. I do have a concern, but it's maybe for the underlying bill as a whole. It's not specifically addressed in this amendment, and maybe we don't need to cover it now, but the 75% number— I've been talking with quite a few folks about disability and moving this to 75% as opposed to some different number. And I know that there were different numbers applied or demonstrated in the packet material that a lot of states range between 50% and I think one state was up at 75%. But most of the states I looked at were 55-60%.

And so my concern is, is that we do have vocational rehabilitation requirements in law when a person is disabled or potentially disabled that they must go through those requirements and try to get rehabbed. And if they can recover enough to be able to get 75% of their wage, equal wage, that they would drop off of the disability. So I was wondering if there was any evaluation done that by expanding this to just everybody if that 75% number would create a scenario where potentially the, the work that's necessary to cover.

Off of the disability may be impacted. And I think— I'm not trying to say people that are disabled aren't trying to go through vocational rehab, but once you go through that and you get re-employed, if you get 75% of your income back, you are no longer eligible for this disability. By moving this to 75%, do we have any idea on how that might impact people wanting to be off the plan? —And I ask that because right now it's 40%. So there's a tremendous incentive through the vocational rehab to get off.

I was just wondering if that was anything that had been evaluated, looked at. [Speaker:CHAIR] Representative Kaul. [Speaker:REPRESENTATIVE KAUl] Through the chair, Representative Bynum, you actually bring up a very good query because it is true that if you are on disability status and you are participating in a vocational rehabilitation program and are able to get a job that pays 3/4 of the salary of your previous position, they de facto consider you to be not on disability. So I would want to make sure that the state disability is exempt from that otherwise requirement, or that we would come in, if we can't do that, and I would hope maybe there's somebody online, that we come in at 74%. To your earlier question, You said, why 75?

You're right. There's a range of states that go from 50 to 75. We landed on 75 because Alaska's housing, energy, and transportation costs, just basic cost of living alone, justified being on the higher end. And that's how we landed on that. And then one quick follow-up.

Representative Bynum. My understanding as well, through the chair, Representative Kopp, my understanding as well is that if that pay differential is something less than 75%, that there is an offset, and I could be wrong on it, but some— the way I understood it is that there's an offset. So if somebody got employment that was 50% of their wage, that they wouldn't necessarily get the full disability, but they would be offset. Is that accurate? [Speaker:MR. KIRK] Through the trial, I don't believe that is.

I believe you get your disability benefit in recognition that the disability benefit isn't really making you whole. It's basically helping you survive. And unless we do something like also add healthcare to it, which is actively being discussed right now, that's really where most of that money is going to, is a family healthcare plan. Sure. Thank you.

Okay, next up I've got Representative Moore. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Thanks for being here. Representative Kopp, I wasn't really clear, was this a friendly amendment or did you have concerns? Representative Kopp.

I just said I defer to the will of the committee. My only question was not wanting it to sink the underlying pool. That was my only— I believe the employee pool is small. I don't believe it would do that, but that was my only reason. Yeah.

OK, follow-up. OK, and so when Going over the fiscal note, I just wasn't sure. They have someone from Retirement and Benefits. I don't know if they're online or not, but it states here that the fiscal impact of this legislation cannot be determined because it cannot be predicted based on how many peace officers or firefighters will become occupationally disabled, and that they would keep an eye on this legislation changing and resubmit a fiscal note if the programming cost needed to be more defined. So is that something that needs to be more defined now that we're adding 21 more people to this scope?

And I don't know if you can answer that or if we need to get someone from Retirement Benefits on the line. Representative Koch. Through the Chair, thank you, Representative Moore, for the question. So we know we're expanding the scope, right? And from the review of the overfunding of these trusts, whether it's the disability trust, which is dramatically overfunded.

I think it's in the, like, 4,000% for TRS, and I forget what it was for PERS, but it's pretty high. We'll probably be okay. But so I think we're okay there, but I don't have an actuarial report to back that up. Okay. All right, well, thank you.

I appreciate it. And I don't— is there somebody from Retirement and Benefits on the line? There's nobody else online, and I don't believe we have anyone in the room. No problem, thank you. Okay, next up I've got Representative Stapp, then Allard.

Representative Stapp. Um, I'll defer to Rep Allard, Mr. Uh, Kocher, if I get to go after. Very good. Thank you, Kocher.

Representative Kopp, I just wanted to have you reiterate the reason you brought this bill forward to have the police and the firefighters, um, on this versus the whole entire state employees, because I'm, I'm concerned, um, too, with what can happen with the fiscal note in the future. And, um, I'm on board with the police and firefighters. I am not necessarily on board with everybody else. So could you just reiterate your reasoning why you just zeroed— I know you're a supporter of them, but give me a little bit more reasoning and the public why you zeroed in on that, please. Through the chair, Representative Allard, yes, thank you for the question.

So that was the only group of employees that brought this to me. I didn't hear from any other group of employees. The testimony on the record was repeatedly from troopers and firefighters who in a single incident had lost their job because they were, they were immediately unable to perform the job function, got assigned to disability status, went to 40% of their pay, which you can only be on disability if you're separated from employment, which means you also lost your healthcare. So they said literally overnight We lost 60% of our pay and we lost our healthcare. And, and very gut-wrenching stories.

And I just didn't hear that from other employee groups. So that is, that, that is why I wasn't intending to not be helpful. But that was the group that brought it to me. And I was obviously convinced that we need to do something about it. Thank you.

Good job, Representative Ballard. So, yeah, quickly, I'm sure there's other linemen or other people that can be hurt on the job too. But your clarification for that, I mean, I said it before on the record, if there was anybody added, I'd just be a no on this one because of the change, the fiscal note I think would be substantial of what we don't know to come forward. And I don't, I'm not saying that you did it for any other reason than the way that the injuries can happen and they lose everything immediately. So thank you for that.

I appreciate it. Thank you. Next I've got Representative Stapp and then Bynum. Representative Stapp. Yeah, Co-Chair.

So reading the documents provided by the sponsor, appreciate that. The PERS DCR occupational death and the TRS is at 5,172% funded. PERS occupational death and disability is 399%. So I am I'm not worried really in the slightest about the increase in the benefit to all employees. However, I am— the same is not true of the healthcare portion of the amendment.

So I'm trying to contemplate how I would divide that question. But the amendment is not really worded in a way I think I can motion to divide. So I mean, I won't make it if it doesn't matter for the— if the votes are there, Mr. Kocher. But I would like to support the occupational portion but not the healthcare portion would be my position. Thank you.

Okay, next we'll go to Representative Bynum. Yes, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Um, a couple quick questions. So through the chair, Representative Kopp, you had indicated that the police, fire were the folks that came and talked to you. Would it be inaccurate for me to say that that group of employees that are covered under PERS probably has some fantastic representation through their associations and union— unions and also their groups that represent them when I compare them to, say, somebody working in forestry or other careers?

Through the Chair, Representative Bynum, I'm not quite sure where you're going with that question, but so It really doesn't matter. This is not like a collective bargaining thing. This is just the disability you get. And it's not, you know, most employee groups don't have like separate piggy banks for something like this. In fact, you see the emails saying pass the hat to help Joe pay for his $20,000 surgery.

The disability is primarily, this disability trust is a state, deduction from a state employee's account. So it's not a freebie. I mean, members do contribute. Let me clarify, because I think it will help. I'm not in any way saying that there's a handout happening or that any— that it's a collective bargaining issue.

My point is, is that when, you know, I sit in my office and I have representatives coming advocating for groups, public safety advocacy is tremendous. They have a tremendous advocacy. And so when I hear about things like this, I hear about it from them as opposed to maybe groups that aren't as well represented. And from my perspective, I was just simply saying that it might be the reason that we've only heard from public safety is because they do have a tremendous advocacy. That was all I was trying to get at.

Representative— through the chair, Representative.

Understood. And I agree, they are very effective advocates. Sure. Quick follow-up. Representative Bynum.

Just for the purpose of the committee, can you clarify how this disability insurance is actually being paid for? Because I hear the term fiscal note, but my understanding is that this is built into the current program that is paying for this disability through each employee and the employer covering that employee. Representative Kopp? Through the Chair, there is an occupational disability portion that comes out of your paycheck. It is like 0.04%.

So every month there is a— the employees are paying into the trust. Follow-up? Follow-up? Let's take the assumption that by adding this additional group that for some reason in the future we saw more people becoming disabled, would— how would the liability, if for example one of the funds was to become underfunded, how would that be dealt with? Representative Kopp?

Through the Chair, I mean, we would hear about it as a legislative body. We would then have a fiscal note and they would be asking for funding. But to your kind of underlying question, which is basically what is the risk?

When we had the division pull the numbers of employees, this has been a very stable number for a long time. And some of it is kudos to our vocational rehab folks. They are really good at having people in there for a short time and getting them back on their feet. So I think that program is successful and it helps stabilize this number. Thank you very much.

Next up, Representative I think Representative Galvin.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster, through the chair. I think we might have heard some report that TERS was 120% funded, Co-Chair, and I'm just looking back at the report that we have. It is dated. Back in February, but it does look like it's at 140%. So I just thought that the committee might want to hear that since there was some concern around not having enough funding in there for— to maybe consider the healthcare piece.

So again, I'm looking at the funding status, first years. From February 3rd, 2026, and it's looking like it's at 140%. I just wanted to put that on the record.

I don't see Representative Bynum. One final question, Co-Chair Foster. Thank you. Through the chair, this particular program, Representative Kopp, is it— if in the future we wanted to change it, could we change it, or is this something that is going to— I don't recall. Is this something that is binding Um, forever for the employees that are currently on the disability.

Through the chair, Representative Bynum, no, this is not a constantly constitutionally projected benefit. The legislature could adjust it. Thank you. Representative Josephson. Uh, yes, to the maker of the amendment, um, Representative Hanna, your Section 2 Amendment 1 Says notwithstanding A of 3935-870, and that's the part that I think Representative Tomaszewski seeks to amend and discussed— did Representative Tomaszewski in the previous hearing— where you have to have been an active member for 12 months.

So is that an element of your amendment as well, that you were getting rid of that 12-month requirement and saying you can go immediately into obtaining any state employee when they're sufficiently— awkward language— but sufficiently disabled would go immediately to the 75% salary plus healthcare.

That's how I read subsection H at line 13. Representative Hannan? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster, for the question. Co-Chair Josephson, I did not believe that my amendment was addressing a change in the percentage.

So that's where— that's throwing me off.

It was making it the coverage eligible but not the percentages. Of pay. Okay.

I guess, I mean, I like your amendment. I'm just trying to clarify. It says notwithstanding A. So it says disregard A. Well, what is A?

A says a member is eligible to retire from the plan if the member has been active for at least 12 months before application for retirement.

So you were working. You were an employee when you became disabled. That's how I—. I apologize. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no further questions, Representative Stout. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I'm going to try to do this.

I'm going to ask that I make a conceptual amendment to delete every line after line 10 on page 1. To line 23 on page 1 and line 1 on page 2 through line 14 on page 2. And I think that effectively divides the question. I object. Okay, we have an objection.

And Representative Stepp, I don't know if you want to—. Yeah, basically what that does, it would, it would, uh, the We would be voting— if the amendment, conceptual amendment would be passed, we would specifically be voting on adding all employees into occupational disability, Mr. Speaker— or Mr. Co-Chair Foster, sorry. Okay. Okay. So that is the amendment.

And I'm going to take that as Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. And Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Unfortunately, I'm going to be speaking against the amendment. I believe that the most important— Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, I will be speaking against.

I believe one of the most important components of this, the underlying amendment, is the fact that a defined contribution employee that is injured on the job will become eligible for health insurance, probably one of the most important things to that employee, more important than even the 75% pay increase. I can't be in support of Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. Okay. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

I guess I'm confused on what is the process now? I guess maybe to the maker of the underlying amendment, when do the employees become eligible or when do they lose their eligibility or how does that all work in the event that they are disabled currently?

Representative Hannan.

Currently— and through the chair— when you lose your job, you lose your healthcare. So these folks, whether they became disabled on the job or because of a disease or injury outside of the job, the day they lose their job as an active employee, they no longer have a healthcare benefit.

Any further follow-up on that? Okay. Representative Hannon. I'm going to speak in opposition to Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. And I guess to underscore, I am very pleased for Representative Kopp to have brought to light what I think is a policy that we did not intend to deliberately do.

And that is that folks who are losing their— first, you're losing your occupation through occupational work and you've lost your paycheck. And— but because of our defined contribution, if you were defined benefit, you can go into your retiree disability. But if you're defined contribution, you have no option. So you are probably now pursuing insurance because of a low economic situation. But by the nature of being disabled, you are probably at one of the cruxes in your life where you need healthcare.

You were, you know, if you were a pilot or a police officer, you are physically capable and now you've lost your income and your healthcare and you have got to figure out how to hold your life together. And the sad thing is, many of those folks don't hold their lives together very well, and they feel left behind. We, you know, especially when it happens on the job. And so as this bill came forward and it came to light, I mean, we're not talking about many Alaskans, but we are talking about Alaskans who, I think we owe health care to all of them.

The disability payments, I'm okay with it being tied to you were injured on your job. So it doesn't expand all the financial benefits. And I don't think we say all the extension of financial benefits. So I am opposed to separating those two and would urge you to vote no on Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. Okay.

In the queue, I've got Representative Bynum and then Tomaszewski. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Just so So my understanding of the way the current law is, is that if I have 2 police officers in a cruiser and one is covered under defined benefits and one is covered under defined contribution, and they are going to a call, they're on the job, and they are involved in an accident and both equally injured, those 2 employees will be covered under the workman's comp for a portion. But if they're unable to return to their job One of those police officers will come into this plan and they will keep their health insurance and the other one will not.

This amendment fixes that problem. Both employees should have their health insurance, not just the one that's covered under Defined Benefits. So I urge, urge, urge the no vote on that. But that just kind of where we're at. And that's why I think that this underlying amendment was an important amendment to bring forward.

Okay, and so we're still on Amendment Number 1. Amendment Number 1, Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. So that brings up another question about workman's comp. And when you're injured on a job, I know when I had my own electrical contracting business, I carried workman's comp on myself.

It was very expensive insurance. But it was an important aspect of my business, and I actually used it at one point. And so does the state of Alaska not have workers' comp insurance? Because we are basically saying this is, this is an amendment about being disabled or injured.

On the job, do we not have workers' comp insurance that takes care of this particular aspect of, one, taking care of any injuries through that you suffered, and two, covering your income? Because my workers' comp insurance did both. So I'm curious about that.

Be for— Representative Cobb. All right. Representative, through the chair, Representative Tomaszewski, can you repeat the question, please? Thank you. So workers' comp insurance, when, when someone is injured, their medical, you know, their trip to the hospital, everything is all covered.

Also, you are you receive income replacement for the time of that injury. And so I don't know how this particular amendment adding the health care to this isn't already covered under workers' comp insurance. Does, does the state of Alaska not provide workers' comp insurance to their employees as part of just being on the job? Representative Cobb. Yeah, through the chair, Representative Tomaszewski.

So, good point of inquiry. The workman's comp is not our healthcare plan. It provides a stipend so that you can get some insurance. It does provide some insurance coverage, but it is not full healthcare plan insurance. And of course, it's not a disability benefit.

So it's its own animal. It has its own rules. And it is not considered an equivalency to be being provided healthcare. It's healthcare would cover everything for you, you know, your trip to the hospital totally unrelated to your injury, taking care of you, your wife, your kids. Where workman's comp's only taking care of you only as it pertains to your injury for a very finite period of time.

So they're little different animals there. I hope that helps clarify. Yeah, follow-up. Representative Tomaszewski. Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. So would the underlying bill kick in after workman's— workers' comp insurance has taken over? So workers' comp insurance, they're gonna cover the ambulance ride, they're gonna cover the medical bills, your hospital bills, and workers' comp also covers income replacement. I know it did in my case when I had it for myself when I'm— ran my own electrical contracting. I had this on myself.

And so does your bill cover after— I mean, I guess we should be talking about this amendment. Does this amendment cover all the healthcare needs not related to the overall injury, which should be covered by workers' comp to begin with, and then this kicks in as the underlying healthcare after those immediate medical bills would be incurred. So I guess that's kind of whether that—. Yeah, through the Chair, Representative Tomaszewski, I believe you have that correct. In every intake form for, you know, when you're presenting to be seen by your healthcare practitioner, if there Is anything that is an injury, they always ask, was this work-related?

And it's because, as you point out, workman's comp is the default initial provider. So they would be a first report if it was work-related under the workman's comp. If you were a workman's comp covered position, the healthcare plan would be secondary to that. Yeah, thank you. Okay, Representative Staff— I'm sorry, Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I was just gonna point out to assist with the answer on that question is that workman's comp is a temporary partial disability benefit. Alaska Statute 23-3185 is what covers that. And what it says is that when an employee is injured and covered under workman's comp and they reach the point of medical stability, that the workman's comp ends. Now in our case, when we have an, the example I gave earlier was two police officers that were injured.

When workman's comp is covering them, they're covering them during that period of medical instability. Their medical coverage is being covered through medical comp, or through this temporary partial disability benefit. But as soon as they reach medical stability, which might mean that they can no longer work as a police officer, they may lose their job, and in doing so, they will lose their health insurance. So they're covered while, while they're getting healthy again, but their future health insurance is in jeopardy. And that's what this, the original amendment, is actually trying to do, is to make sure that they can carry health insurance after workman's comp is concluded.

Before we go to wrap up, Any additional comments, questions? Seeing none, Representative Snap. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Foster. So, I mean, all the comments, um, are correct. Like, I would like to be able to expand the healthcare for retirees.

Um, I don't have a problem doing that. I'm going to remind the members of this committee that Alaska Statute 24-08-036 states before a bill which could have effects on the retirement system of the state is reported to the Rules Committee There shall be attached to the bill an analysis of the long-term and short-term costs of the state if the bill is adopted, as well as the impact of the bill on the actuarial soundness of the fund. Okay, so if you want to make this material change to the state retirement system, you are required by state law to get an actuarial analysis about that material change. I will die on that hill. I think the sponsor's bill is a great bill.

I think we can make changes to improve that bill. But what I'm asking to not do the retirement healthcare now because that is a very material change on the healthcare funded status that would require an actuarial report by law.

We have done a wrap-up but we're not so formal here in committee. So Representative Ballard, we'll allow you to—. Thank you, Co-Chair. And I think to follow up on Representative Stapp's words, you know, we say a lot that this is a good bill. This is something we need to move forward.

And if we want to bring something greater and grander, let's do it in a different bill in a different way. And this isn't— there's a few changes we could probably tweak with the sponsor of this bill, but it's a really sound bill as is with a couple of tweaks. But if we're going to do these grand movements and these grand changes, it's going to be costly. And I, I would have to say we need to follow the statute. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Hannon. Do you maintain your objection to Amendment 1 to Amendment 1? The objection is maintained. Okay, so Madam Clerk, uh, we have a— okay, and so Madam Clerk, we are going to do a roll call on Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 by Representative Stepp. Madam Clerk.

Representative Hannan. No. Representative Tomaszewski.

Yes. Representative Moore? Yes. Representative Allard? Yes.

Representative Stapp? Representative Gelvin? No. Representative Jimmy? No.

Representative Bynum? No. Representative Josephson? No. Representative Schraggy?

Yes. Representative Foster? No. 5 Yay, 6 nay. So on a vote of 5 yea, 2, 6 nay, the amendments 1 to Amendment 1 has failed.

And that takes us back to Amendment 1 by Representative Hannan. Do we have any further comments or questions on Amendment Number 1 before we go to wrap-up? Seeing none, Representative Hannan, wrap-up on Amendment Number 1.

Okay, and I object, so I'm going to remove my objection. We have an objection. Would you like to speak Mr. Co-chair, I'm— again, I like the idea. I actually agree with the maker of the amendment and the attempt here.

I'm just going to say the same comments I made last time. Alaska statute, we're making a material change to retirement systems that would require actuarial analysis. Probably isn't time to get that done. Probably jeopardizes the bill's passage. So that's why I'm going to maintain my objection.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing Representative Hannan. I guess I will thank you through the chair and I will, taking Representative Stapp's words to heart, I will contact Retirement and Benefit and ask them to run the actuarial cost for those 16 people. I believe they probably already have it because this is not a surprise to them as the bills have been proposed.

OK, Representative Schrag. Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I'm going to support the amendment, although I share some of the concerns about not having more information and the impact it could have on the future path of this bill. But I'll support the amendment for today. Thank you.

OK, Representative Josephson. I'm going to support the amendment. I think the number with our current premium payments, which are in the range of $1,700 a month, so we'll round up and call it $2,000 times 12 months, that should be $24,000, even if it's 20 employees. Unless I'm missing something, this is sort of $400,000 amendment—. [Speaker:MR. BRYANT] No, no, no.

[Speaker:MR. MAY] —at the most. I'd be happy to be corrected, but that's— I understand that it could be a larger population. I get that. I get that. I'm going to support the amendment.

Any further discussion?

Representative Stout. I just want to put on the record, Mr. Kricher, it's actually the utilization of the healthcare that drives the cost. So obviously someone who is disabled, they are going to use a lot more care. So that is what you are talking about. So it is not the premiums that are the problem, it is the utilization.

And like I said, it is probably not a problem because of the nature of the healthcare funded status. I just want to say there is a reason why our law says we don't make substantial changes to our retirement the retirement system because we have a constitutional obligation not to diminish that. I know the maker of the bill said that might not apply to what we're doing. I don't see how that would not if we had future individuals who were disabled. So that's the comments.

Thanks. Senator Koch. Yes, Chair Foster. So my trustee team member here just reminded me that the ARM Board did do an actuarial analysis on this very question. And I believe the members have it.

06/177. In the GRS report that members have, I don't know what the front cover looks like.

It is the State of Alaska— Alaska Retirement Management Board recommending action for disability and healthcare coverage improvements for disabled defined contribution members. It's Resolution 2025-22. And if you could maybe just let folks, um, if they're looking for it, it looks like this. Would you give us the page number again? Yeah, so you're looking at— that's the, the COVID sheet, which is the resolution, and then the page number is, um, is page 106.

And right there they show that if the— if it was adopted, the funding ratio for all scenarios—. I'm so sorry, I think we've got folks still looking for it, so we just want to make sure they can follow along. Representative Kopp, in the top left corner, they have separate page numbers. Could you give us that page number? It's page 7.

Okay, thank you. And the arm board report, let's just take a briefie so that everybody— make sure we've got everybody on the same page here.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 2:34 PM. I think we're all reading the same page. And Representative Kopp, if you could walk us through that and explain it. Yes, so briefly, it remains overfunded. That's, that's just cutting to the chase.

It's, it's overfunded even with the full coverage of all employees under the plan. You can see that the occupational pre-65 coverage remains at 119% funded, and I would invite my staff, Ms. Julie O'Connor, to opine on that further. She's my expert on this. Ms. O'Connor, for the record, Julie O'Connor, staff to Representative Kopf.

So we are looking at the ARM Board, Alaska Retirement Management Board Resolution 2025-22.

And into that, they did different scenarios and they had this resolution recommending their changes. And one of those was to add occupational disability for the Tier 4 members. And so within that, they did do run numbers. Obviously, it is not the actuary for this amendment, but it does give you a good idea of what that would cost. And so what they say is the baseline, which the TRRS— or sorry, the PERS, which is Public Employee Retirement System, the DC Retiree medical, it's currently 121% funded, and if they add occupational disability healthcare, it would still remain overfunded at 119%.

And I do want to note, as they continue on this packet, there is speak of non-occupational, and that is not in this bill at all. And TRS and us Tier 4 members do not get that.

Representative Stout. Yeah, I think, Co-Chair Foster, through the Chair, just to clarify, the amendment we are talking about is strictly occupational disability. You have a study, if I am reading correctly, scenario 2, basically we talk about retiree medical plans being an indebted and having funded status as well as expanding the contributions to the normal plan. And that is on not only occupational disability benefits, but as well as the healthcare. So I might just want to clarify, I am understanding scenario 2 in this report before I.

Remove my objection through the chair. Julie O'Connor, staff representative, ACOP. So as if you are disabled as a police officer and you were terminated and you need health care, you don't get AlaskaCare like we as employees. You were put on the retiree medical plan, and so that is the medical plan that we are speaking of today. And so that is where the overfundedness comes from.

Okay, all right, well, with that, I'll remove my objection. Okay, the objection for Amendment Number 1 has been removed. Are there any further objections? Seeing none, Amendment Number 1 has been adopted. So let's see here, I am trying to figure out if we think we might have enough time to get to Amendment Number 2.

Let's give it a shot. Representative Tomaszewski, if you'd like to move your amendments. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move Amendment 2. Object for purposes of discussion.

Representative Tomaszewski. Oh, thank you, Chair Foster. So as discussed in prior hearings on this bill, the 40% initial for the first year injured, I felt like that's somewhat of a— that first year, I believe, is when you really need the better portion of your income and dropping— not only are you injured, but then you drop to 40%. I think that's something that we should amend and raise. So basically what the amendment does is moves it from 40% the first year to 75% for the first year immediately.

And this applies to, as the amendment is written, to the police and firefighters only as it is written in the bill original. So with that, I'll be happy to take any questions. Okay. Representative Josephson and then Bynum. Question for the bill sponsor.

In your testimony, I think you said the first 12 months, because the disability is yet to be fully determined and, and perhaps stabilized, it as a matter of policy, whoever wrote the bill as it exists, that that was your understanding for this 12-month period where one didn't receive, I guess, the 40%?

Is that your recall of essentially the legislative history to the best of your knowledge? Representative Josephson, to the best of my knowledge, the And to help give this— give it context to this answer, there is a 30-day time period required to report to the Occupational Disability Division for your program. Part of that is not only required assessment, but required treatment plan and see where you're at. Yeah, and some people can be in and out in months and some people, as we know, for years that they're in there. So it's just a policy call of the committee.

If you know, I don't, I don't have a strong sense. I mean, you know, probably I really appreciate the intent of the amendment sponsor. He's right. That is when the hit is, is really hard, is when it first happens. It would certainly soften the blow, but it doesn't guarantee that they would stay in that status as soon as they're off disability, they would be off that 75% payment.

I believe that was probably the original thought, is if you're in it for a whole year, then you probably need more financial support. What we've heard in testimony is people really do need support right away rather than a year from now. I do want to clarify something I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, on this specific issue. My, uh, trustee, uh, staff here clarified my earlier misstatement. Somebody, I forget, maybe it was Representative Bynum, asked about if you have a job with the state where you lose that and you're appointed to a 75% disability status, what happens to that if you get another job and you're making 3/4 of the salary you were?

My statement was that it wouldn't supplant it. But, and that's correct if it's with a non-PERS employer. If your next job that you get, let's say you're a state employee but you go into a private job somewhere where you're making 3/4, you wouldn't lose your disability benefit. If you work for a PERS employer again, then that would just be a straight trade. They wouldn't continue to pay it because now you're getting 3/4 of your salary.

So I just wanted to clarify, it only replaces it if it's with another private PERS employer. If it's with a non-PERS, then it's just a supplement. Okay. Next question, Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

I think that I like this amendment. I was 100%— I wasn't 100% sure if it was just for that first 12 months of disability or if it just required an employee to be employed for 12 months before they were eligible for that. But under the assumption that it's for the first 12 months of disability, I would like to conceptually amend Amendment Number 2. Conceptual Amendment Number 1 is to have it conform with Amendment Number 1. So in this case, it just says police and— police or fire, and I would like to remove the component of police or fire so that it can apply or conforms with Amendment Number 1 that was passed.

Do we have any objections for Conceptual Amendment Number 2 to Amendment Number 2? Hearing none, Conceptual Amendment Number 2 has been adopted. Okay, and any further comments or questions on Amendment Number 2?

Just for clarity, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 was adopted. Sorry, yes, that was Conceptual Amendment 1 to 2. Thank you. Okay, um, seeing no further discussion, I'll remove my objection to Amendment Number 2 as amended. Um, and I don't hear any further objections, so Amendment Number 2 has been adopted.

And let's see here, Amendment Number 3. Um, Chair Buster, amendment number 3 will not be offered. Okay, Amendment Number 3 will not be offered. Um, let's see here, I'm just looking at the time. We've got about 10 minutes.

Representative Bynum, would you classify this as a simple amendment or a substantive amendment? Amendment Number 4 will not be offered as well. That was part of Amendment 1 that was already accepted. Okay, I would say Amendment Number 5 would be as complicated as maybe the bill sponsor would think that it would be. I know that this was something that was discussed with him prior to— I'm carrying it on behalf of another member that's not on this committee, and so I would defer to the bill sponsor on this one.

Would you like me to go ahead and offer it and we can just hold it if we're going to hold, or what would you like me to do? Um, let's go ahead and offer it and then we can discuss it and we'll check with the bill sponsor to see what his thoughts are. So Representative Bynum. Thank you. I move amendment number 5.

Okay, and I'll object for purposes of discussion. Representative Bynum, if you could explain the amendment and then we'll go to Representative Kopp. Sure. Thank you, um, Co-Chair Foster. Amendment number 5 is basically to talk about the presumption of a claim for disability that's resulting from the items that are listed under 23-3243.

And there's a list of items that can cause harm. And it basically is just changing the timeframe in which those apply. It's effectively what this amendment does. And I would defer to the bill sponsor as he had, if whether or not he would think this is friendly or not. Representative Kahl.

Through the Chair, Representative Bynum. So there's a lot of unknowns with this, extending the presumption for all those disease classes. I, I just don't know what that cost would be or the actuarial projected cost would be. Do I think it's important for firefighters? Yes.

I do. I certainly want them to be protected, presumably for these to be considered duty-related. But workman's comp is its own animal, as we all know, and I'm just not sure what that does. Representative Staff has already mentioned actuarial issues, and I don't know what that does to the bill, so I have a caution flag. Let's maybe finish up that line of thinking.

Representative Bynum. Yes, thank you, co-chair Foster. Like I said, I brought this forward for another member. I think it's an important issue.

You know, I'm inclined to withdraw the amendment at this time. It gives us more time to work with the bill sponsor. I'm assuming that this would be something that if we can get those questions answered, that that would be something to be that you would consider on the floor. So with that, unless if there's, um, an objection doing so, I will withdraw Amendment Number 5. Okay, Amendment Number 5 has been withdrawn.

That takes us to Amendment Number 6, and that's Representative.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I withdraw Amendment 6. Okay, Amendment 6 has been withdrawn. Are there any further amendments? I don't think there are.

And so with that, um, that takes us through the entire amendment process. And if there is a desire by the committee to move the bill, I believe we've checked off all the boxes. And so if we're at that point, I would entertain a motion. Representative Sharagi. Yeah, Co-Chair Foster, I move House Bill 210, Work Order 34-LS0938/Alpha, out of committee as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.

Okay. And is there an objection? Seeing none, House Bill 210, which is version 34-LS0938/A, is moved out of House Finance as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. And so if everyone can stick around and sign the committee report. And Representative Kopp, thank you very much for your time.

Do you have any comments? I'd like to thank the committee very much. It's addressing a real significant issue for the lives of those employees and their families. Really appreciate the committee's work. Thank you.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. So with that, um, I know that we had a 9:00 AM meeting scheduled for Tomorrow I think we're going to let folks know whether or not we're going to continue to have that meeting. I think the capital budget portion was not going to be done, but possibly have bills previously heard. I think we'll talk about it and let folks know via email whether or not that meeting will still be held.

I think we— I'm looking at my staff. Good. Okay, so with that, um, oh, I'm sorry, the next thing we do have, however, is for remainder of today. We do have 4:30— that's today at 4:30— we do have a meeting to hear public testimony on the capital budget. Also wanted to let folks know we did send out an email for two amendment deadlines.

The first is House Bill 261, that's the education funding bill. Would like to set that amendment deadline for Monday, May 4th at 5 PM, and the same deadline for House Bill Bill 271, that's the Kitchen Lights Unit Royalty Modification Bill, and that's for Monday, May 4th at 5 PM. And part of what we were waiting for before was a little bit of analysis, but departments have said that they won't— there won't be any forthcoming analysis, the analysis that was requested for at least one of the bills. So again, we've We have—. Objecting to the amendment deadline.

Representative Stepp. Yeah, sorry, Coach. Can I finish what I'm saying? Okay. So what I was saying is that we're setting the amendment deadline and— oh gosh, I was going to say something about that, but we do have an objection.

And Representative Stepp, is there a time that you're wanting— that you're preferring to have the amendment deadline set for? Yeah, Coach here. I know you set them both for Monday, May 4th. Both bills are relatively complex. It would be nice maybe if the kitchen lights unit bill was maybe set for Tuesday or Wednesday so I have some time.

Obviously not a lot of time to draft complicated amendments. Sure. And is it mostly just the kitchen lights one that you're more interested in? I can't, I mean, it's just doing them both at the same time frame, Mr. Coach here. I'd like to do one and then maybe do the other and have time to make sure that I can have the proper staff and legal work done.

Okay. We usually try to allow for 3 days. And what's today? Today is Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. So that would not be 3 full days if we did it on Monday.

So we'll go ahead and move it to Tuesday.

And Mr. Anderson—. On the education bill, we're moving to Tuesday? Well, let me just have Mr. Anderson come up and—. Yeah, that's a very long time. Well, we usually try to do 3 full days, so it would be Thursday, Friday, and Monday.

And then if we set it for Tuesday, I'm willing to hear what folks have to say. I'm trying not to coach or protract you. We've got one really quickly. We can only have one person speaking at a time, one person speaking at a time. So I'm going to put you in the queue, Representative Allard.

And then Representative Sharagi, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Coach Foster. Just, uh, we've had the bill in front of us a number of times. I respect the desire to have adequate amendment drafting time, but the remainder of today, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday— I know those are weekend days. I think this time of year we're all expecting to and are used to, frankly, working through the weekend here at the end of session.

And I mean, you're borderline 6 days there. I feel that's very generous. I personally would prefer to see a Monday deadline for 261 and would support the slightly extended deadline on 271. I think that does help us to make sure that we're focused as we're preparing our amendments and making sure that they're good to be submitted to the committee. But I would very much not like to see the amendment deadline for 261 pushed back.

Representative Mallory. Thank you. Adding an extra day is not going to hurt anything when we are trying to— with the processes being speed up. But I am waiting for things from legal and I am not getting them back right away. And they said it might take a little bit.

And my amendments are based on that analysis coming back from legal. So I would appreciate that extra day.

When you say— is that for which bill that you have got? That is for 261, please. Representative Bynum and then Representative Step. I just think we should clarify this because I thought Co-Chair Schraggi basically agreed with what I was asking. He said Monday, you said Tuesday.

I said Monday for—. I'm sure the clerk is probably pulling her hair out trying to figure out who's speaking right now. We've got an Eddie's has been requested, so we're going to do that, and then I do have the lineup of Here's a representative of— oops, I'm sorry— briefities.

Okay, um, House Finance back on record. The time is currently 2:54 PM. Interrupts in Ballard.

Do you want me just to repeat what I said? If you could. I will. So I have been told by not anybody, well, a couple people in particular at legal, they have a lot on their plate right now. And so I specifically asked for some information, and that is going to be based on whether I do an amendment or not.

And I just need that time to make sure that when they come back with that legal review then I have enough time to respond without putting them around the clock and be courteous to them as a department. How about this? So I think what we can do is if your amendments come back later from legal, we can always take those up whenever we get those. Fair enough. So if I could, maybe on 261, we'll go ahead and set the amendment deadline for Monday at 5 PM is what I've got, what I announced earlier.

And so Monday at 5, and then for kitchen lights, Representative Stap, you're asking for another day, so that'll be Tuesday at 5. And then the caveat to all of this is if folks have amendments that are coming in late from legal, we can always start the process of taking up amendments And then if we have to have another meeting to take up more amendments, we can certainly do that. So with that, um, I think just to again reiterate, we do have 4:30 Finance today for public testimony on the capital budget. And if there's nothing else to come for the committee, we'll be adjourned at 2:56 PM. Thank you.