Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/03/2001 01:55 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 03, 2001
1:55 P.M.
TAPE HFC 01 - 113, Side A
TAPE HFC 01 - 113, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mulder called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:55 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eldon Mulder, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative John Davies
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Richard Foster
Representative John Harris
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Ken Lancaster
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford; Bruce Johnson, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development; Eddy Jeans,
Manger, School Finance and Facilities Section, Department of
Education and Early Development; Annette Kreitzer, Staff,
Senator Loren Leman; Paul Roetman, Staff, Senator Loran
Leman; Paul Roetman, Staff, Senator Loran Leman; Guy Bell,
Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department of
Administration; Darwin Peterson, Staff, Senator John
Torgerson; Wilson, Condon, Commissioner, Department of
Revenue; Mike Tibbles, Staff, Representative Williams; Thyes
Shaub, Lobbyist for the Associated General Contractors of
Alaska, Anchorage; Doug Gardner, Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Law.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Major Douglas Norris, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety, Anchorage; Melissa Hill, Program Director,
Alaska Teacher Placement, Fairbanks; Debbie Ossiander,
Anchorage School Board, Anchorage; Kevin Brady, Attorney,
Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker llp., Anchorage; Josie Styles,
Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) Program Director,
Bering Straits Region; Bill Reynold, Attorney, Oles Morrison
Rinker & Baker llp., Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 185 An Act relating to fees for certain uses of state
water and the accounting and appropriation of
those fees; relating to authorizations for the
temporary use of state water; making other
amendments to the Alaska Water Use Act; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 185 was POSTPONDED for a hearing at a later
date.
CS SB 145(FIN)
An Act relating to regional and village public
safety officers; relating to the expansion of the
village public safety officer program to include
the provision of probation and parole supervision
services; and relating to retirement benefits for
village public safety officers.
CS SB 145 (FIN) was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
CS SS SB 149(HES)
An Act relating to reemployment of retired
teachers, to eligibility for major medical
insurance coverage for beneficiaries of the
teachers' retirement system, and to teacher
certificates; and providing for an effective date.
HCS CS SS SB 149 (FIN) was reported out of
Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with
a fiscal note #1 Department of Administration
dated 4/24/01 and a zero note dated 4/24/01, #2 by
Department of Education & Early Development.
SB 152 An Act relating to the handling of and interest on
contract controversies involving the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities or state
agencies to whom the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities delegates the responsibility
for handling the controversies.
HCS SB 152 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with
indeterminate fiscal note #1 by the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities dated 4/25/01
and #2 by Department of Community & Economic
Development dated 4/11/01.
CS SB 158(RES) am
An Act directing the commissioner of revenue to
prepare a report to the legislature relating to
the state's participation in owning or financing a
gas pipeline project; and providing for an
effective date.
HCS CS SB 158 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal
note #1 by Department of Revenue dated 3/29/01.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 145(FIN)
An Act relating to regional and village public safety
officers; relating to the expansion of the village
public safety officer program to include the provision
of probation and parole supervision services; and
relating to retirement benefits for village public
safety officers.
SENATOR RICK HALFORD explained that the bill would do a lot
of good with a little bit of money. He spoke to the pilot
program for Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO), noting
the success in dealing with the probation/parole problem and
getting people back to their own communities. He advised
that the bill costs a little over $1 million dollars,
however, it would save much more in stopping repeat
offenders.
Senator Halford outlined four parts of the bill:
· Parole/probation supervision for VPSO's;
· Pay scale to accompany that responsibility;
· Career path for regional Public Safety Officers;
and
· Officers eligible for the State's bottom line
retirement system.
He urged that the bill pass from Committee.
Co-Chair Mulder requested comments on Amendment #1 and #2.
[Copies on File]. Senator Halford explained that the
amendment dealing with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
would address the taxability question in regard to the
system. Current Village Public Safety Officers are
employees of the regional non-profit system. There are tax
questions whether they are governmental employees. There
are other exceptions within that program and because of that
language should be inserted to address any tax problems.
The second amendment stipulates employee officers within the
list of police officers for the State, clarifying the
category which makes them distinct.
Co-Chair Mulder agreed that the pilot program would allow
VPSO's the ability to enhance the State's probation/parole
opportunities. He asked if the effort was to encourage
career opportunities. Senator Halford explained that the
turnover rate is very high and that the training costs are
high. Eventually, there will be a reduction to the
Department of Corrections budget, as those people will not
be going back to jail because they failed to make it out of
parole or were jobless.
Representative Foster voiced appreciation to the sponsor for
the legislation.
JOSIE STYLES, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), VILLAGE PUBLIC
SAFETY OFFICIER (VPSO), PROGRAM DIRECTOR, BERING STRAITS
REGION, voiced support for the legislation. She requested
that members move the bill from Committee.
Recess: 2:05 P.M.
Reconvened: 4:55 P.M.
MAJOR DOUGLAS NORRIS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA
STATE TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ANCHORAGE,
testified in support of SB 145. He noted that the bill
addresses State Troopers needs throughout the State. He
offered to answer questions of the Committee.
CS SB 145 (FIN) was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 149
An Act relating to employment incentives for teachers
and health care providers, to reemployment of retired
teachers, to loans to and loan forgiveness for teachers
and health care providers, to awards to teachers, to
eligibility for major medical insurance coverage for
beneficiaries of the teachers' retirement system, and
to teacher certificates; and providing for an effective
date.
PAUL ROETMAN, STAFF, SENATOR LORAN LEMAN, noted that SB 149
responds to Alaska's current teacher shortage. It would
establish a multi-pronged approach to increase and retain
personnel in critical staffing areas. The bill would create
a new teacher certification that would allow the State to
recognize the credentials of teachers certified out-of-
state. The "preliminary teacher certificate" would include
the same endorsements as those on a teacher's current, valid
certificate issued out-of-state.
Mr. Roetman added that the bill would ease recertification
requirements for teachers previously certified in Alaska
through the creation of a transitional teaching certificate.
The certificate would be valid for one year during which the
teacher would complete requirements for the issuance of a
regular teaching certificate.
SB 149 would promote employment of retired teachers through
the creation of a retirement benefit election option and it
would promote teacher retention by improving coverage and
easing qualifications to receive major medical benefits.
Under SB 149, a teacher could qualify for 100% medical
coverage by:
· Years of service (25 years);
· Age (60 instead of 65); or
· If disabled and appointed to normal retirement.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if the teacher competency test
required of all out-of-state teachers was included in the
legislation. Mr. Roetman referenced Page 3, and noted that
the manner in which the bill was drafted would make it
easier for teachers to be certified within one year.
Representative Davies asked what an out-of-state teacher
would have to do to get a regular certificate. Mr. Roetman
explained that the preliminary teaching certificate would
only last for three years. Within the first year, a
practice exam is required and in the two successive years,
the teacher would have to meet the course criteria.
Representative Davies asked if the requirements placed in
the end of the bill were the same as the bill previously
adopted. Mr. Roetman replied that they were identical.
Co-Chair Mulder pointed out that there was a committee
substitute, 22-LS0769\W, Cramer, 5/01/01. Vice-Chair Bunde
MOVED to ADOPT the committee substitute as the draft of the
bill before the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
Mr. Roetman explained the differences between the committee
substitute and the House HES version of the legislation. He
noted that a sectional change had been added in the House
HES Committee, incorporating the recertification section.
He added that there were minor changes to Page 5, adding the
SLA section and on Page 7, the effective date was changed to
indicate "four years".
Representative Davies asked if the sunset had been
consistent with the current sunset date. Mr. Roetman
explained that HB 242 was identical to SB 149. He added
that HB 242 was currently in the Senate Finance Committee
(SFC).
GUY BELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, noted that the Department
supports the proposed version of the legislation. He
pointed out the small differences between the retirement
sections of the two versions.
Representative Davies asked if the "declaration of shortage"
was contained in Section #3. Mr. Bell stated it was.
Representative Davies inquired how that provision would
work. He understood that the shortage language would allow
for a short-term hire. Mr. Roetman explained that language
was intentionally drafted to be liberal in application. The
language would not limit the school district from declaring
a shortage and would not be prohibitive in hiring retired
teachers. Representative Davies interjected that there are
two reasons why a school district would hire a teacher;
either to teach or to do other projects. He noted that the
language stipulates that there would have to be a shortage
of teachers in order to hire someone to do special projects.
Vice-Chair Bunde believed that the effect would be that
every school district would anticipate a shortage of
teachers. Representative Davies stressed that the district
could want to hire someone just to do a specialized project.
Under the terms of the legislation, they would not be able
to do that. Mr. Roetman stated that if it was a non-
teaching job, the school district could contract.
BRUCE JOHNSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
& EARLY DEVELOPMENT, voiced support for the legislation.
Representative Davies asked how about the out-of-state
teacher having a preliminary certificate, what they would
need to do in order to receive a State teaching certificate.
Dr. Johnson noted that the State Board just passed into
regulation, a provisional certificate that would be for two
years. SB 149 would change that from two years to three
years. The bill grants hiring authority with the
opportunity to stipulate that a person from another state,
who holds a valid regular teaching certificate could come
and work in the State of Alaska for three years. There are
requirements that must be met. They would have to take the
competency exam and may have to take an Alaska studies and
Alaska history course. Those requirements would be time
period specified. Dr. Johnson explained that those
requirements are established through regulation.
Representative Davies asked if the districts could currently
hire a teacher to do a special project and still have that
person receive their retirement benefits. Dr. Johnson
advised that districts are allowed to currently do short
term contracts as an independent contractor.
MELISSA HILL, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PROGRAM
DIRECTOR, ALASKA TEACHER PLACEMENT, FAIRBANKS, voiced
support for the legislation.
Representative Hudson MOVED to report HCS CS SS SB 149 (FIN)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the accompanying fiscal notes.
HCS CS SS SB 149 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by #1
Department of Administration dated 4/24/01 and #2 by
Department of Education & Early Development a zero note
dated 4/24/01.
#SB158
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 158(RES)
An Act directing the commissioner of revenue to prepare
a report to the legislature relating to the state's
participation in owning or financing a gas pipeline
project; and providing for an effective date.
DARWIN PETERSON, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, stated that
commercialization of North Slope natural gas has been one of
the Legislature's priorities. SB 158 would direct the
Commissioner of the Department of Revenue to retain a
financial expert to examine whether the State should
participate in either ownership or financing of a natural
gas pipeline project. The expert would examine any benefit
or detriment to a project caused by the State's
participation.
Mr. Peterson continued, the bill would ensure that the
Legislature participates in the preparation of the report
by:
· Requiring that the chairs of the Senate and House
Resource Committees periodically meet with the
expert to review data and information about there
report; and
· Require that the Commissioner of Department of
Revenue provide progress reports to the chairs
every 60 days. The bill would require the
Commissioner to prepare a comprehensive report,
with recommendations, addressing the State's
options by January 31, 2002, and submit it to the
Legislature and the Governor.
Co-Chair Mulder asked the name of the new committee
established to address gas and oil concerns. Mr. Peterson
replied it was the Joint Committee on Natural Gas Pipelines,
nd
which was established for the remainder of the 22
Legislature. Co-Chair Mulder inquired if it would be more
appropriate for the report to be focused on that Committee.
Mr. Peterson believed that it would and commented that the
sponsor would support that motion.
Vice-Chair Bunde inquired if there was anything included
within the bill which the Commissioner currently does not
do. Mr. Peterson deferred that comment to Commissioner
Condon.
Representative Lancaster referenced Page 2, Line 28, "the
State should participate". Mr. Peterson referenced Page 2,
Line 2, and inclusion of the language "whether the State
should participate".
Representative Davies voiced concern with the separation of
powers in requesting the Commissioner to provide a report
for the Legislature. Mr. Peterson responded that the
sponsor envisions that the Commissioner of Revenue will work
directly with the report. He noted that there are a lot of
experts in that Department.
Representative Whitaker inquired the base line for data
analysis. Mr. Peterson did not know. He noted that the
Department had done similar reports in the past.
Representative Whitaker commented that it was important to
know what the procedures would be.
WILSON CONDON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, offered
to answer any questions of the Committee.
Representative Whitaker asked if the basis for analysis
could be contained in the requested reports. Commissioner
Condon replied that the report would contain whatever
information the Department could "get their hands on". He
stated that they did not have a particular report in mind at
this time. The data would be available for both a third
party and legislative review.
Representative Hudson asked if the fiscal note would be
adequate to achieve the intended goal. Commissioner Condon
responded that the Department would be able to accomplish
the work with that note.
Representative Lancaster asked if the report would include
tariff rates and costs. Commissioner Condon explained that
it would reference tariff costs, however, those costs are
not known until they are set.
Representative Davies referenced Page 3, Section 2, and
asked if there could be a conflict of who would be "running"
the contract. Commissioner Condon understood that the
Commissioner of Revenue would administer the contract.
Representative Davies reiterated his concern with that
language and thought that the legislators would be
controlling the preparation and content. Commissioner
Condon did not read the language that way. Following the
completion of the report, the contractor would be available
to the Legislature to address what they used to prepare the
report. Mr. Peterson read the language the same way as the
Commissioner. He stated that the experts would share the
data that they used to prepare the report. That information
could be provided during the preparation of the report.
Representative Davies declared for the record that he hoped
that legislators would not be telling the Commissioner how
to prepare the report. Mr. Peterson stated that was not the
intent of the sponsor.
Co-Chair Mulder offered a conceptual amendment, to Page 3,
Line 9, inserting language which clarifies that the report
comes back to the Joint Committee on Natural Gas Pipelines.
Representative Davies argued that another location in the
bill would be more appropriate.
TAPE HFC 01 - 113, Side B
Co-Chair Mulder commented that the amendment could be made
on the House Floor. Following Committee discussion, Co-
Chair Mulder suggested moving the bill out of Committee "as
is".
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS, commented that
he could have the language drafted as indicated by Co-Chair
Mulder.
Co-Chair Mulder proceeded to MOVE the conceptual amendment.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Co-Chair Mulder referenced the fiscal note.
Representative Lancaster MOVED to report HCS CS SB 158 (FIN)
out of Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
HCS CS SB 158 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note #1 by Department
of Revenue dated 3/29/01.
#SB152
SENATE BILL NO. 152
An Act relating to the handling of and interest on
contract controversies involving the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities or state agencies
to whom the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities delegates the responsibility for handling
the controversies.
Representative Davies WITHDREW Amendment #2. [Copy on
File]. There being NO OBJECTION, #2 was WITHDRAWN.
KEVIN BRADY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY, OLES
MORRISON RINKER & BAKER LLP., ANCHORAGE, testified in
support of the Legislation. He offered to answer any
questions of the Committee.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked Mr. Brady for a comment on the time
line. Mr. Brady explained that document had not yet been
provided to his firm. In response to comments made by Co-
Chair Mulder, Mr. Brady advised that language was standard
specification from the State procurement contact language.
He noted, for a practical matter, it is not what actually
takes place. From those that intend to claim, in order to
procure an officers decision, there must be a period in
excess of 18-24 months unless the contractor demands
immediate action. To forestall that process, the engineer
thth
would request additional information on the 25 or 29 day.
And then the procurement officer would request additional
thth
information on the 70 to 89 day.
Mr. Brady claimed that was the problem in that would be the
incentive to delay the process. If interest were accruing,
there would be no incentive to delay the process. He added,
the engineer's position would be to say that the contractor
is entitled to nothing. It would not be until the
contractor got beyond those hurdles that he would receive a
fair hearing by a hearing officer.
Representative Whitaker summarized that the bill relates to
the point in time in which interest would begin to accrue.
Mr. Brady understood that interest begins to accrue from the
date the claim is filed. Mr. Brady stated that would occur
within 45 days of the contractor filing his claim. The
process is such that the contractor files his intent to
claim, if it cannot be worked out on site, then between the
contractor and the resident engineer within 7 days, the
contractor would have 14 days to file his formal notice of
Intent to Claim. Then the contractor has an additional 30
days in which to put together all the information and get it
certified.
THYES SHAUB, LOBBYIST FOR THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS
OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE, noted that she had assembled a flow
chart of the Current Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities Claims/Resolution Procedures. [Copy on File].
She noted that the 90 days spoken about in the Procurement
Code is the 60 days plus the 30 days separated out on the
chart. There is another 90-day period after the claim is
filed with the contracting officer or the procurement
officer. The way in which SB 152 is currently written, the
point in which interest would accrue after filed with the
procurement officer.
Vice-Chair Bunde understood that would take 111 days. Mr.
Brady clarified that some events occur in which the
contractor must immediately report to the engineer. There
is a 7-day period, during which the contractor and the
engineer must work together to establish a resolution. If
that does not occur within 7 days, the contractor must file
a notice of intent to claim within 14 days. Upon filing the
notice of intent to claim, the contractor must submit his
actual claim within 60 days. The total number of days would
be 81.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked at what point would the interest
clock begin. Mr. Brady replied that the interest would
begin on the day that the contractor certifies his claim.
The Department could either request additional information
or kick it back because it does not meet the statutory
requirement. That would be the date that the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities would have a formal
notice. The Department has the benefit of 81 days.
Co-Chair Mulder understood that interest would not take
effect until the formal claim, but rather when the claim is
filed with the contracting officer. Mr. Brady responded
that there is a disconnect between the standard
specification for dispute and the actual statutory regime.
Discussion followed among Committee members regarding the
accruing of interest. Vice-Chair Bunde hoped to create a
balancing act between the State and the contractors. He
asked if there was an advantage of establishing a time
limit. Mr. Brady replied that there is no advantage to
delaying the certification of a claim.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked Mr. Brady's reaction to changing the
interest clock ticking 80 days after the initial claim. Mr.
Brady replied that the fundamental problem would be that
delaying would act as a disincentive for the Department to
process the information in the contractors claim. Interest
does not begin to accrue on the contractors claim until he
submits it after that 7-day period, 14-day period or the 60-
day period. Vice-Chair Bunde emphasized that would be the
maximum. Mr. Brady agreed.
Vice-Chair Bunde saw no incentive for the contractor to
provide information if the interest clock started ticking on
day #1. Mr. Brady disagreed. He stated that there are jobs
in which the contractor takes losses. The last thing that
the contractor wants to do is call a lawyer. He would
rather negotiate a claim than to get involved in a costly
battle. He emphasized that there is no incentive for the
contractor to delay his claim.
Vice-Chair Bunde interjected that the Committee was
attempting to reach a compromise. He noted that there
should always be a contingency.
BILL REYNOLD, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY, OLES
MORRISON RINKER & BAKER LLP., ANCHORAGE, interjected that
the filing concern would not provide a benefit to the
contractor. The interest would not start to run until the
contractor had certified it. The motivation of the
contractor would be to file as soon as possible.
Representative Croft referenced Amendment #3. [Copy on
File]. The amendment would insert "filed" and delete
"under" and insert "that meets the requirements of" on Page
1, Line 13. He believed that could provide a complete
standard. Mr. Reynold agreed and suggested that language be
included. Mr. Brady noted that language would clarify and
make it concrete that the contractor files a complete claim.
Representative Whitaker asked the definition and
determination of what "complete" is and how it would be
interpreted. Co-Chair Mulder advised that a definition for
completed claim does exist.
Representative Hudson pointed out that Page 1, Line 12,
calls for time lines for the controversy asserted by the
contractor and provides for the required flexibility. He
noted that in the context of the bill, it was well defined.
The final decision of the procurement officer is the date
that the interest begins to accrue.
Representative Croft ascertained that there was not
sufficient language to protect the contractor's interest.
The claim language should be complete.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3. Co-Chair
Mulder OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
DOUG GARDNER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
offered to answer questions of the Committee.
Representative Croft asked if on Page 1, Line 13, deleting
the language "the claim was filed under" and inserting "a
complete claim was filed and meets the requirements of"
would work. Representative Croft MOVED that language as the
new Amendment #3. Co-Chair Mulder OBJECTED for the purpose
of discussion.
Mr. Gardner commented that he was not sure how that would
change anything. He stated that would continue to keep the
legislation in a gray area. If that were the case, the
Committee should consider an amendment to AS 36.36.25.
Co-Chair Mulder explained that that was not the case at this
time. Mr. Gardner stated that it is not unusual to get to a
commissioner hearing officer stage and find that a party has
a new case, a new set of legal theories for recovery and new
facts. If you want to tackle a problem of a completed claim
and do it through the proposed Amendment #3, adding language
specifying that is the claim, then the amendment could
address that; however, without that language added, the
amendment will keep the State in a gray area.
Co-Chair Mulder acknowledged that was reasonable. He asked
if the rules of engagement were tightened, would it then be
an appropriate compromise. Mr. Brady noted that he had
reviewed the language of Amendment #4. [Copy on File]. Co-
Chair Mulder corrected Mr. Brady's comment to the amendment.
Mr. Brady responded that the problem exists with how it
would relate to the claims process.
Mr. Brady explained the process. The contractor already
knows that he will not get relief from the engineer. The
only real adequate relief that he has the opportunity to get
would be through the hearing officer. The contractor would
document his plan and provide all the information that he
has, but to have a fully developed case takes a great deal
of time and effort. Adding the amendment would simply give
the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities an
excuse to state that the information had not been previously
presented.
Mr. Gardner referenced the letter from Mr. Brady's law firm
st
dated May 1, suggesting that all the information would be
provided in that period. He stated that the clients are not
having a difficult time meeting that time line. In the
language, the appeal may not raise new factual issues or
theories of recovery. The contractors could be working on
two jobs at the same time. And standards should not be less
in the State system. He knew that the Committee was
struggling to determine a "level playing field". Mr.
Gardner referenced a fair spot. If the Department gets a
fair chance to hear everything, and the Department makes a
mistake, the Committee owes it to the Department to let them
have a full and complete claim.
Vice-Chair Bunde commented on information contained in the
handout from the Department of Law, clarifying that it would
apply to most construction projects run by State agencies
including and not limited to Alaska Industrial Development
Export Authority (AIDEA), Alaska Energy, Department of
Administration, Department of Fish and Game, and the
Department of Health and Social Services. He asked if that
was accurate.
Mr. Gardner replied that there are some agencies that do not
fall under AS 36.36.30. Mr. Gardner added that those
agencies received their delegation of authority from
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities.
Vice-Chair Bunde advised that if it is important for the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities that it
should be important for all major projects that the State
contracts for.
Co-Chair Mulder WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment #3.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #3 was adopted.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #4. [Copy on
File]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Lancaster MOVED to report HCS SB 152 (FIN)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the attached fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS SB 152 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with indeterminate fiscal notes by
#1 Department of Transportation & Public Facilities dated
4/25/01 and #2 by Department of Community & Economic
Development dated 4/11/01.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|