Legislature(1995 - 1996)

05/01/1995 03:08 PM L&C

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
 HB 288 - PROCUREMENT PREFERENCE/DISABLED PERSONS                             
 Number 029                                                                   
 288 provides for people to qualify for a bidder preference                    
 granted to disabled people.  It does so by extending the                      
 preference to include corporations where 100 percent of the                   
 shareholders are disabled and to disabled partnerships where 100              
 percent of the partners are disabled.  The law currently states               
 that only people who are sole proprietors are able to qualify.                
 Dugan Petty was in attendance to explain the changes to the bill.             
 She said she has a letter from the Legislative Legal Services                 
 Division stating that there still may be a problem with the                   
 existing bill as opposed to the new language relating to who                  
 qualifies for a bidder preference.  The addition to this language             
 is that in order to qualify for a bidder preference, the company              
 has to have maintained for a period of six months immediately                 
 preceding the date of the sale, a place of business within the                
 state that offers the supply, services or construction of the                 
 general nature solicited by the agency.  Also it is required that             
 it be staffed by the bidder or an employee of the bidder.  She                
 reiterated Dugan Petty was present to answer any questions.                   
 CHAIRMAN KOTT noted for the record that Representative Gene                   
 Kubina had joined the committee at 3:12 p.m.                                  
 Number 017                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK asked if they were working off the               
 work draft G, dated 4-10-95, or the work draft that had been                  
 faxed to her office dated 4-28-95.                                            
 Number 086                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that she was looking at the                     
 proposed committee substitute (CS) (L&C) Version G.  She                      
 explained the changes to the old Version F.  Section 1 in Version             
 F becomes Section 2 in Version G.  The new Section 1 has the new              
 language, which she had just read.  The old Section 2 was                     
 deleted, and Section 3 remains the same in both versions.                     
 Number 104                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG inquired if there was an Alaska                
 Statute with the definition of "disabled persons."                            
 Number 109                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said these people must be severely disabled.             
 The people would have to be certified by Vocational                           
 Rehabilitation as qualified.  That would be the same                          
 qualifications for this bill.                                                 
 Number 130                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked where that is stated in the bill.               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said it was in existing statute.  There                  
 wasn't a reference to that in this bill.  She said they were                  
 allowing corporations to qualify as long as the owners are 100                
 percent disabled, sank as the existing law with respect to sole               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the current statute reads:  "A person               
 with a disability means a person who has a permanent mental or                
 physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major               
 life activity.  Major life activities include caring for oneself,             
 performing manual tasks, walking, hearing, speaking, breathing,               
 learning, and working.  Mental impairment means a physiological               
 disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement or anatomical loss              
 affecting one or more of body systems such as neurological,                   
 muscular skeletal, special sense organs, respiratory including                
 speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genital               
 urinary, (indisc.) lymphatic, skin and endocrine, or mental or                
 physical disorder including mental retardation, organic brain                 
 syndrome, emotional or mental illness and specific learning                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would like a copy of this.                    
 Number 172                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said this applies to nonprofits also,                
 and a nonprofit would be any kind of a corporation not for                    
 Number 176                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the ownership has to be 100 percent                 
 disabled.  Nonprofit may not necessarily have an identified                   
 ownership.  She would defer the question to Dugan Petty.                      
 Number 181                                                                    
 OF ADMINISTRATION, stated that employment programs receive a 15               
 percent Alaska preference.  When this law was established, it set             
 out a separate preference for employment programs.  They can't                
 double on the preference, but they do receive a 15 percent                    
 preference in addition to the Alaska bidders preference.                      
 Number 190                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if it would be appropriate to move the             
 work draft for committee's consideration.                                     
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would entertain a motion.                               
 Number 194                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to adopt work draft 9LSO992\G.             
 Number 196                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any objections in adopting the             
 work draft version G, dated 4-10-95.  Hearing none, the work                  
 draft was adopted.  He asked Mr. Petty if he had any comments.                
 Number 202                                                                    
 MR. PETTY said he had nothing more to add.                                    
 Number 208                                                                    
 REHABILITATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DOE), stated that the                
 division supports HB 288.  The division added the fiscal note                 
 because, over the past few months, they have had many inquiries               
 from people who have just found the law on the books.  People                 
 have tried hiring employees as brokers in order to receive a                  
 bidder preference.  While they support corporations that are                  
 wholly owned, receiving a bidder preference they feel they would              
 be dealing with other companies or corporations trying to get                 
 their foot in the door.  This will require a lot of screening on              
 the division's part.  Since the division doesn't know for certain             
 how much time this screening would take, they would go on record              
 that if the committee moves HB 288 without the fiscal note, the               
 division might come back next year and tell the committee how                 
 much time it has taken.                                                       
 Number 231                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked what Mr. Ridgeway thought the amount               
 might be, and would it be used for full-time employees.                       
 Number 234                                                                    
 MR. RIDGEWAY said the amount was $23,000, for a half time                     
 clerical person to do the screening and follow-up on the                      
 Number 239                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON inquired if a fiscal note had been prepared              
 but not yet submitted.                                                        
 MR. RIDGEWAY replied it has been submitted.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if there was a House Finance Committee             
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said it would need a House Finance Committee                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he didn't have a copy of the fiscal                 
 CHAIRMAN KOTT took a brief at ease at 3:20 p.m., while copies                 
 were made.                                                                    
 Number 256                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the 15 percent preference was                
 added onto the 10 percent.                                                    
 Number 266                                                                    
 MR. PETTY said the question was, "What about nonprofits or                    
 employment programs, previously called shelter workshops?"                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that wasn't his question.                        
 Number 270                                                                    
 MR. PETTY said the question he was responding to was regarding                
 the 15 percent.  There is a separate preference in statute that               
 allows employment programs to receive a 15 percent preference, in             
 addition to the Alaska bidders preference, if they compete on                 
 bids issued by the state.                                                     
 Number 273                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he had asked the question because it             
 wasn't entirely clear.                                                        
 Number 277                                                                    
 MR. PETTY explained that it wasn't clear from the CS because                  
 there wasn't any reference to the employment program preference.              
 Number 279                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted for the record that this was 10                 
 percent plus 5 percent for a total of 15 percent.                             
 Number 283                                                                    
 MR. PETTY said it first applies the 5 percent Alaska bidder                   
 preference.  Then, if the qualified bidder is no more than 15                 
 percent above the lowest bidder, after applying the Alaskan                   
 bidder preference, they would win the bid.  He commented that it              
 doesn't necessarily work out to exactly 15 percent.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it was 10 percent in the draft.                  
 MR. PETTY said that was correct.  He restated it was 5 percent                
 with the Alaska bidders preference.  If that bid is within 10                 
 percent of the lowest bid after application of the 5 percent                  
 bidder preference, they would receive the bid.                                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was glad he asked the question.               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if that had addressed his concerns.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied yes, and it was also on the                   
 Number 297                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative James if she had further                   
 Number 300                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she would like to dispute the fiscal              
 note.  She thought perhaps the department could be persuaded to               
 withdraw it.  The statute hasn't had much activity since it has               
 been on the books from 1991.  It is true there may be more                    
 activity now, but she hesitates to say its because of this bill.              
 The number of people having 100 percent disabled owned                        
 corporations and partnerships might be limited.  She suggested                
 that it not have a fiscal note; it could be absorbed by existing              
 staff and Vocational Rehabilitation.  She asked of the DOE would              
 consider withdrawing the note.                                                
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Ridgeway to explain the fiscal note                   
 Number 314                                                                    
 MR. RIDGEWAY replied they had prepared the fiscal note prior to               
 the current language change, which states a person must be in                 
 business for six months.  The department anticipated they would               
 have people brokering, which is the hiring of people with                     
 disabilities as brokers, who then bid state contracts.  The                   
 disabled wouldn't be full-time employees.  He stated that the new             
 language prevents that.  Therefore, they would have a smaller                 
 number applying for the contract because the loop hole has been               
 tightened.  They would withdraw the fiscal note at this time.                 
 Number 333                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON had a procedural question on how the                     
 committee would dismiss the fiscal note.                                      
 Number 340                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he wasn't sure, having never gone through                  
 this.  He thought it should be sufficient to have the fiscal note             
 withdrawn on the record.                                                      
 Number 342                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to remove the fiscal note on               
 HB 288 and to move the bill without the note.                                 
 Number 345                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were objections.  Hearing none, the              
 note was withdrawn.                                                           
 Number 348                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to move CSHB 288(L&C) with                 
 attached zero fiscal note from the Department of Administration               
 with individual recommendations.                                              
 Number 358                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were objections.  Hearing none, CSHB             
 288(L&C) passed from committee.                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects