Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/31/2009 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR29 | |
| HJR24 | |
| HB24 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 24-PROCUREMENT PREFERENCE FOR VETERANS [Contains discussion of HJR 16] CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 24, "An Act relating to a public procurement preference for Alaska veterans." 1:38:16 PM CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff to Representative Anna Fairclough, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee AS Sec. 36.30.180, states that "The purpose of bidder preference for resident firms when the state acts as a market participant is to encourage local industry, strengthen and stabilize the economy, decrease unemployment, and strengthen the tax and revenue base of the state." House Bill 24 will expand this preference to include Alaska Veteran Owned Businesses. Furthermore, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) identified 132 state bills that address the veteran business communities concerns at the state level in the past two years. House Bill 24 brings Alaska into the national effort to honor veterans. 1:39:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered Amendment 1. 1:40:42 PM The committee took an at-ease from 1:40 p.m. to 1:41 p.m. 1:41:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved Amendment 1, which read: Page 1, Lines 12, following "bidder", through line 16, until "In" Delete all material and insert: "and is a qualifying entity, a 5 percent preference shall be applied to the bid price. The preference shall not exceed five thousand dollars." Page 2, Lines 14 & 15 Delete all material. 1:41:12 PM There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 1:41:29 PM MS. KOENEMAN explained that Section 1 of the bill amends AS 36.30.170(a) to clean up language for referencing a new section that defines Alaska veterans' preference. Section 2 amends AS 36.30 by adding a new section that adds in a preference for Alaska veterans and defines what a qualified entity is. Section 2 also incorporates Amendment 1, that limits the cost preference to 5 percent and not exceeding $5,000. Amendment 1 also deletes the language creating a register of individuals who qualify as Alaska veterans. Ms. Koeneman explained the sponsor felt this requirement was not necessary. Section 3 amends AS 36.30.250(b) to clean up language for referencing a new section that defines Alaska veterans' preference. Section 4 amends AS 36.30.335 to clean up language for referencing a new section that defines Alaska veterans' preference. 1:44:23 PM CHAIR GATTO confirmed the change from 10 percent to 5 percent and $5,000. 1:44:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH observed there was a similar bill introduced in the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. He suggested that the bills should be coordinated. 1:45:16 PM MS. KOENEMAN indicated she would "follow up." There followed a brief discussion about the subject of another bill. 1:46:23 PM MS. KOENEMAN stated HJR 16 was presented to the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. 1:46:59 PM CHAIR GATTO confirmed that HJR 16 contains a 3 percent preference for disabled veterans. 1:47:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH pointed out the two bills send a mixed message. House Joint Resolution 16 is sending a message to the federal government; HB 24 is initiating a different message at the state level. He questioned the level of consistency. 1:47:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS opined the procurement procedures differ for the state and federal government. He said, "I think we're A-OK." 1:47:54 PM TIM WHEELER, President, Alaska Veterans Business Alliance, read from the following statement [original punctuation provided]: We are an alliance that advocates for veteran business opportunities at the state, city, and private sector and advocate why the Federal Laws for the SDVOB community are not working in Alaska for Federal Contracting Opportunities. I stand here today in support of HB 24 for a Veteran State Procurement Preference. Approval of HB 24 will also recognize those service men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect the rights and freedoms we all enjoy. It is imperative that small business have maximum opportunity for State Procurement Opportunities. And, to the greatest extent practicable small businesses owned by military Veterans should come first in these considerations. These economic and cultural times are challenging from Main Street to Wall Street and "NO" group of small business entrepreneurs are more deserving of preference opportunity to do business with and for the State of Alaska then the men and women who have defended this great state and country. "NOBODY". More and more the population of military veterans mirrors the diversity of this state. Veterans are made, not born. We are not torn asunder by race, background, or gender. The "V" in the word Veteran does not stand for victim and we must expand preference business consideration for all Veteran- Owned small business. The passing of HB 24 would significantly expand opportunities for many minority and women veterans in Alaska's marketplace of today and the future. You all have seen the yellow magnetic ribbon stickers that say support the troops. Why is it that when the troops put their weapons down and take their uniform off why does the support stop? For the record, Mr. Chairman, I will be submitting numerous national and state organizations standing in support of veterans' business opportunities. These organizations represent a membership of over one million veterans standing with Alaska veterans in support of HB 24. 1:50:12 PM RIC DAVIDGE, State Council President, Vietnam Veterans of America; Member, Board of Directors, Alaska Veterans Business Alliance, disclosed that he worked briefly for Representative Anna Fairclough, sponsor of HB 24. He explained that HJR 16 deals with federal procurement and calls for federal agencies in Alaska to meet their legislated 3 percent mandate. On the other hand, HB 24 would establish a veteran bidder preference in the state for state procurements. He expressed his support of the amendments to HB 24, although he still supports the development of a pre-qualified register of veteran-owned businesses in the state. Mr. Davidge addressed the concern of those who view veteran preference as "rent a vet." He pointed out there is a provision in the bill, identified as Section 2(c), that requires the veteran in the bidder preference to be actively involved in the day to day management of the business. 1:52:27 PM CHAIR GATTO asked for clarification on HJR 16 as to whether the resolution is "asking the feds ... to exercise what is already in public law ... the 3 percent preference for disabled veterans." MR. DAVIDGE confirmed that there are public laws, executive orders, and other federal actions mandating the 3 percent goal for service disabled veteran-owned businesses; however, in Alaska, and in many other states, the federal agencies refuse to comply. House Joint Resolution 16 calls for hearings to determine the reason. He stressed that HB 24 "deals only with state procurements." 1:53:34 PM BARBARA BACHMEIER provided further information regarding HJR 16. Ms. Bachmeier turned to the subject of HB 24, and said this legislation differs in scope and intent from federal legislation on this issue. She said she strongly disagrees with components of the bill and is not in favor of the legislation as it is written. Ms. Bachmeier opined Alaska and its veterans would be better served by legislation similar to the "service disabled veteran business enterprise opportunity act" passed in Florida in 2008. This type of legislation continues to honor and provide opportunities to disabled veterans, who are persons who served in the military, were discharged, and were disabled in the line of duty during their service. She advised the readjustment and rehabilitation challenges of a service connected disabled veteran are more challenging than those faced by other veterans; therefore, this population of veterans should be afforded additional considerations. Ms. Bachmeier observed the value of patterning the state's program after federal law in order to stand with Congress and recognize the sacrifice of disabled veterans, realize the need to rectify the economic disadvantage of disabled veterans, and remedy the circumstances preventing disabled veterans from self-employment. 1:58:32 PM JOHN YOUMANS, Member, Alaska Veterans Business Alliance, informed the committee he was a small business owner and expressed his support for HB 24. He said this is a very important bill for those who delay their entry into business to serve in the military and encouraged its passage. In response to Representative Gatto, Mr. Youmans said his business provides janitorial, maintenance, and painting services. 1:59:57 PM KARL LERAY, Chair, Board of Directors, Alaska Veterans Business Alliance, compared the difficulties faced by deployed members of the military to service by fireman or policemen. He said that soldiers are told to relinquish their ties to family, community, and sometimes to their religious beliefs. Adding to this disenfranchisement, soldiers are considered transients in the communities they serve. Mr. LeRay stated it is also difficult for families as they get "cut-off" when military members are reassigned. Disabled veterans have additional challenges as they may view themselves as failures because the disability does not allow them to be the person they were before their service. He provided a personal example as to why veterans typically have trouble adjusting to private life. Mr. LeRay stressed that veterans are not better than other professions that serve under difficult conditions; however, the loss of community is hard to overcome. In fact, when soldiers return home they are not ready to immediately integrate into the community and start a business. He encouraged the committee to move HB 24 and support veterans' businesses in the state. 2:03:56 PM CHAIR GATTO closed public testimony on HB 24. 2:04:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HB 24, 26-LS0135\E, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and forthcoming fiscal notes. CHAIR GATTO asked if there were any objections. 2:04:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for any available information on the fiscal notes. 2:04:57 PM VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer, Division of General Services, Department of Administration, informed the committee he would be responsible for the implementation of HB 24. He anticipated a zero fiscal note, given the amendment that removed the veteran's register and the costs thereof. The department plans to work informally to monitor and enforce registration. Mr. Jones acknowledged there could be costs pertaining to awarding bids to other than the lowest bidder; however, with the state's current accounting system, he was unable to accurately give an estimate on those increased costs. 2:06:55 PM CHAIR GATTO surmised the high side of the fiscal note would be $5,000 to $50,000. 2:07:05 PM MR. JONES reminded the committee the bill authorizes a maximum benefit for a bidder of $5,000; however, it is difficult to estimate how many bidders would participate or whether the preference would affect the amount of the award. 2:07:33 PM CHAIR GATTO remarked: So, if we give a $2,000 preference to a veteran, than that's a $2,000 fiscal note in the bill, that we should at least anticipate. MR. JONES restated HB 24 anticipates a maximum of $5,000 preference per bid; thus "it's probably anyone's guess as to how many bids the preference would apply to and what the actual difference between the qualifying veteran's bids versus what the low bid otherwise would have been." CHAIR GATTO suggested the bill may garner a referral to the House Finance Committee. 2:08:42 PM There being no objection, CSHB 24(MLV) was reported from the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AMENDMENT to HB24 - Conceptual (revised).pdf |
HMLV 3/31/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HB 24 backup.pdf |
HMLV 3/31/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HJR 24 Article.pdf |
HMLV 3/31/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 24 |
| HJR 24 letter of support.pdf |
HMLV 3/31/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 24 |
| HJR 29 Article 2.pdf |
HMLV 3/31/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
| HJR 29 Article.pdf |
HMLV 3/31/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
| Letter of Support HB 24.doc |
HMLV 3/31/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 24 |