Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/01/1995 03:08 PM L&C
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR & COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE May 1, 1995 3:08 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Pete Kott, Chairman Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chairman Representative Beverly Masek Representative Jerry Sanders Representative Brian Porter Representative Kim Elton Representative Gene Kubina MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 288: "An Act relating to procurement preferences for corporations and partnerships owned by persons with disabilities." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 249: "An Act authorizing the McGrath Kuskokwim River Ice Classic." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE CSSB 53(JUD): "An Act relating to regulation of risk retention or purchasing groups; to preemption of the regulation of insurance agents and insurance producers; to the general powers of the director of the division of insurance; to insurance examination hearings; to insurer certificates of authority; to annual and quarterly statements, taxes, and prohibited acts of insurers; to reinsurance credit allowed a domestic insurer; to risk based capital for insurers; to insurer assets and liabilities; to insurer investments; to insurance holding companies; to regulation, licensing, examination, and trade practices of insurance producers, managing general agents, third-party administrators, brokers, independent adjusters, and reinsurance intermediary managers; to surplus lines insurance; to criminal insurance acts; to premium increases in automobile insurance; to insurance rating; to assigned risk pools; to filing and approval of certain insurance policy forms; to required insurance coverage for acupuncture, nurse midwives' services, mammography, and phenylketonuria; to health insurance provided by small employers; to transfer of an insurer's status as a domestic insurer; to quarterly statements of benevolent associations, fraternal benefit societies, and health maintenance organizations; to reciprocal insurers; to the definition of `member insurer' for purposes of the Alaska Life and Disability Insurance Guaranty Association; to electronic insurance data transfer and insurance funds transfer; to the definitions of `managing general agent' and `person' applicable to insurance law; to automobile assigned risk plans; placing a person employed by the division of insurance as an actuary or assistant actuary into the exempt service; amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 45; and providing for an effective date." HEARD AND HELD HB 270: "An Act relating to retirement incentive programs for the public employees' retirement system and the teachers' retirement system; relating to separation incentives for certain state employees; and providing for an effective date." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 109: "An Act relating to telephone directory listings and solicitations." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 263: "An Act relating to certification of workers who handle hazardous waste; and providing for an effective date." SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES Alaska State Legislature State Capital, Room 102 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-3743 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 88 DUGAN PETTY, Director Division of General Services Department of Administration P.O. Box 110210 Juneau, AK 99811-0120 Telephone: (907) 465-2250 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 288 STAN RIDGEWAY, Deputy Director Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Department of Education 801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-6932 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 288 DEBORAH OSTENDORF, Legislative Secretary to Representative Irene Nicholia State Capitol, Room 501 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4527 POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement on HB 249 DENNIS BOCHARD, Director, Division of Charitable Gaming Department of Revenue P.O. Box 110440 Juneau, AK 99811-0400 Telephone: (907) 465-2229 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 249 GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 432 Telephone: (907) 465-3777 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 263 BEVERLY WARD, Director Southeast Government Relations ARCO Alaska, Incorporated 134 N. Franklin Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-3680 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 263 BLAKE JOHNSON Laborers Local 341 HCO A, Box 1580 Kenai, AK 99611 Telephone: (907) 776-5217 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 270 MARIANNE BURKE, Director Division of Insurance Department of Commerce and Economic Development P.O. Box 110805 Juneau, AK 99811-0805 Telephone: (907) 465-2515 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 53 ANNALEE MCCONNELL, Director Office of Management and Budget Office of the Governor P.O. 110020 Juneau, AK 99811-0020 Telephone: (907) 465-4660 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 270 PHYLLIS OLSTA, Steward Alaska Marine Highway System Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 411 Seventh Street Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-2058 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 270 JIM TEDFORD, Parent 9367 Rivercourt Way Juneau, AK 9980 Telephone: (907) 789-0976 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 270 BOB STALNAKER, Director Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration P.O. Box 110203 Juneau, AK 99811-0203 Telephone: (907) 465-4460 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 270 JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst Office of Management and Budget Office of the Governor P.O. Box 110020 Juneau, AK 99811-0200 Telephone: (907) 465-4676 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 270 MARK LIVINGSTON 832 Warren Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: (907) 247-0166 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 270 GARY BLOOMQUIST, City Manager City of Kodiak P.O. Box 1397 Kodiak, AK 99615 Telephone: (907) 486-8640 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 270 ART SNOWDEN, Administrative Director Alaska Court System 303 "K" Street Anchorage, AK 99501-2084 Telephone: (907) 264-0547 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 270 REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 517 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4998 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor HB 109 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 288 SHORT TITLE: PROCUREMENT PREFERENCES/STATE LEASES SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/29/95 979 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/29/95 979 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE 04/03/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/03/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/07/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/24/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/24/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 05/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 249 SHORT TITLE: MCGRATH KUSKOKWIM RIVER ICE CLASSIC SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NICHOLIA JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/10/95 701 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/10/95 701 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE 04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 05/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: SB 53 SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/25/95 83 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/25/95 84 (S) L&C, JUD 02/28/95 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 03/02/95 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 03/02/95 (S) MINUTE(L&C) 03/07/95 515 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 4NR NEW TITLE 03/07/95 516 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 03/27/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 03/27/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 04/05/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 04/05/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 04/06/95 891 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 3NR NEW TITLE 04/06/95 892 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED) 04/10/95 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 04/10/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 04/18/95 1058 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/18/95 04/18/95 1065 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 04/18/95 1065 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 04/18/95 1066 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 04/18/95 1066 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 53(JUD) 04/18/95 1067 (S) PASSED Y16 N3 E1 04/18/95 1067 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 04/18/95 1068 (S) COURT RULE(S) FAILED Y12 N7 E1 04/18/95 1068 (S) TAYLOR NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 04/19/95 1088 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/20 04/20/95 1122 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 04/20/95 1123 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y17 N3 04/20/95 1123 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 04/20/95 1123 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 04/20/95 1126 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 04/21/95 1417 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/21/95 1417 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY 04/28/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 05/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 270 SHORT TITLE: RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/20/95 813 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/20/95 814 (H) STA, L&C, FINANCE 03/20/95 814 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (ADM) 03/20/95 814 (H) INDETERMINATE FN (GOV/ALL DEPTS) 03/20/95 814 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 04/01/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102 04/01/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/04/95 (H) STA AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/20/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 04/20/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/25/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 04/25/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/27/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/28/95 1623 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 2DP 5NR 04/28/95 1624 (H) DP: ROBINSON, WILLIS 04/28/95 1624 (H) NR: JAMES, PORTER, GREEN, IVAN, OGAN 04/28/95 1624 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (ADM) 04/28/95 1624 (H) INDETERMINATE FN (GOV/ALL DEPTS) 3/20/95 05/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 109 SHORT TITLE: TELEPHONE DIRECTORY LISTING/SOLICITATIONS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BROWN, Navarre, B.Davis JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/23/95 115 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/23/95 116 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY 01/26/95 148 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B.DAVIS 04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 05/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 263 SHORT TITLE: CERTIF. OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WORKERS SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/17/95 778 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/17/95 778 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE 03/29/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 03/29/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 03/31/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 03/31/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 05/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-54, SIDE A Number 000 The House Labor and Commerce Committee was called to order by Chairman Pete Kott at 3:08 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Kott, Masek, Sanders and Rokeberg. Members absent at the call to order were Representatives Elton, Kubina and Porter. Number 008 CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT announced that a quorum was present. The order of business would be HB 249, HB 288, HB 263, HB 109, SB 53 and HB 270. Chairman Kott noted Representative Kim Elton arrived directly after the call to order. HB 288 - PROCUREMENT PREFERENCE/DISABLED PERSONS Number 029 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 288, said HB 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 proprietors. 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 disabilities." 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 profit. 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 DUGAN PETTY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF GENERAL SERVICES, DEPARTMENT 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 STAN RIDGEWAY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL 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 preferences. 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 referral. CHAIRMAN KOTT said it would need a House Finance Committee referral. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he didn't have a copy of the fiscal note. 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 record. Number 297 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative James if she had further comments. 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 again. 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. HB 249 - MCGRATH KUSKOKWIM RIVER ICE CLASSIC Number 364 CHAIRMAN KOTT stated the next order of business would be HB 249. Number 366 DEBORAH OSTENDORF, LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY TO REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 249, testified that HB 249 changes AS 05.15.690 to add the McGrath Ice Classic. She said she had received a call from someone in the Bethel area concerning use of the name Kuskokwim River included in the bill. She asked the committee to adopt the committee substitute which would take out the "Kuskokwim River" and rename it "The McGrath River Ice Classic." Number 379 The committee took a brief at ease at 3:30 p.m. and was back at 3:35 p.m. Number 384 CHAIRMAN KOTT would entertain a motion to adopt the proposed CS. Number 384 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to adopt the proposed CSHB 249(L&C), 9L-S0658/F, Luckhaupt, dated 4-28-95. Number 386 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, CSHB 249(L&C) was adopted. He asked Ms. Ostendorf to explain the differences. Number 389 MS. OSTENDORF stated that it removes the name "Kuskokwim River" from the title, renaming it the "McGrath Ice Classic." CHAIRMAN KOTT asked why the change was needed. Number 393 MS. OSTENDORF replied there was a similar ice classic out of Bethel, named the "Kuskokwim River Ice Classic." People in Bethel didn't want there to be any confusion. Number 400 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that in reading the sponsor statement, he could see where the proceeds are intended to go. He asked whether there was anything in statute to mandate them changing where the beneficiary or profits would go. Number 405 MS. OSTENDORF said the permit holder could have the proceeds go to any organization. In this case, KSKO Radio had opted to keep half of the proceeds and to share the other half with the McGrath Emergency Services. Once they have a permit, they can change that. There is nothing in statute prohibiting them from sharing the money with whomever they want. Number 412 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the Kuskokwim Public Broadcasting Company was also responsible for the Bethel Kuskokwim Classic. Number 413 MS. OSTENDORF replied no. They do not currently hold the permit for this. She wasn't sure who was responsible for that. Number 415 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said Bethel Social Services. Number 419 DENNIS BOCHARD, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CHARITABLE GAMING, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, stated that he was in attendance to answer any questions the committee might have. The division is neutral on the bill as there are several other ice classics, and this would be no different than those they currently oversee. Number 428 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK commented that with the state being in the situation it's in, they were going to have to have an "Alaskan Classic Day." She made a motion to move CSHB 249(L&C) with individual recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note out of committee. Number 434 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, CSHB 249(L&C) was passed out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee. HB 263 - CERTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WORKERS Number 446 CHAIRMAN KOTT stated the next matter to come before the committee would be HB 263. Number 449 GEORGE DOZIER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE, stated that the original bill amended Title 46 and granted the Department of Labor (DOL) the authority to promulgate regulations which would establish standards for hazardous waste worker certification. Authority is also granted to review and approve certification programs. The programs would not be operated by the DOL. Instead, they will be operated by employers, unions, colleges, and other organizations. The bill required workers to be certified before they undertake work at hazardous waste sites. The employers would propose certification programs to the department, which would review the programs and grant approval if appropriate. The employer would also have to certify that each worker was adequately trained to safely handle the waste. The bill establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 and two levels of criminal penalties at the class A and B misdemeanor levels. The CS, Version K, dated 4-27-95, makes changes proposed by the DOL. The most significant being that it removes the statute from Title 46 and places it in Title 18. The language in the original version concerning the handling of hazardous waste has been replaced with reference to working at hazardous waste sites. Section G expands the department's authority to promulgate regulations. The department is granted authorization to implement this section. The department has submitted a reduced fiscal note. Number 487 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she didn't have a copy of the new CS or the new fiscal note. Number 492 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked the date of the fiscal note. MR. DOZIER responded the new fiscal note was dated 4-6-95; the old fiscal note is dated 3-28-95. Number 502 BEVERLY WARD, DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, ARCO ALASKA, INCORPORATED, stated that the changes made in the proposed CS were an improvement to the bill. The statutory references and the use of the phrase "hazardous waste site" are consistent with the intent. However, ARCO Alaska opposes HB 263. They believe it duplicates existing laws and regulations and will create more bureaucracy. MS. WARD described the hazardous waste operations and emergency response training requirements known as HAZWHOPPER. HAZWHOPPER is the name given to a Federal Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 29.CFR 19.10.120, and it was adopted by the state of Alaska, OSHA, Subchapter 10.01.01. The regulation was designed to protect employees involved in three aspects of hazardous chemical exposure. First, those cleaning hazardous waste sites, as defined in regulation; second, those handling wastes at a specially designed treatment storage and disposal facility; and third, those responding to chemical spills. HB 263 addresses those who are employed in cleaning hazardous waste sites. The general site workers involved in most operations at a hazardous waste cleanup site are presently required to have a 40 hour training class. The content of the class is specifically described in regulation. "The content of the class must include the names of personnel and all (indisc.) responsible for site safety and health; safety and other hazards present on site; use of personal protective equipment; work practices by which the employee can minimize risks from hazards; safe use of engineering controls and equipment on site; medical surveillance requirements including recognition of symptoms and signs which might indicate overexposure to hazards; contents of the site safety and health plan required by other sections of the regulation." MS. WARD continued that these workers were also required to have three days of actual field experience under the direct supervision of a trained experienced supervisor. Other workers who may only occasionally be on the site or who are located in areas away from the main hazardous work are required to have 24 hours of training similar to the training listed above. If they become general site workers, they have to obtain the extra 16 hours of training. The workers need eight hours of annual refresher training each year. The training group must provide a certificate to the employee acknowledging that the employee has completed the course. Number 539 MS. WARD stated that because of the 40 hour training already required under HAZWHOPPER, they believe the bill to be redundant. She based this assessment on the following considerations: The fact that employees already receive initial classroom training; the requirement of three days of supervised, on the job training; the required eight hours of refresher training and the fact that regulations specifically address what information must be presented; and the fact that employees already receive certificates. She said HB 263 will have an impact on the state. The fiscal note shows two additional employees. The training providers will have to pay for the course review, thus raising their training rates to defer costs. She noted that the department had been talking with them in the past few days to address some of ARCO's concerns and are willing to continue dialogue on specific language. She said if the bill is moved, they would continue to work with DOL and the next committee of referral. Number 553 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted the testimony Ms. Ward gave speaks to HAZWHOPPER which speaks to chemical exposure. He asked, "Is that narrower than what this bill would do?" MS. WARD responded no. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "@What about radioactivity, asbestos or (indisc)?" Number 558 MS. WARD replied that radioactive materials may have their own regulations because of the problems with the nuclear industry. She could not address that. HB 263 would include crude oil and things of that nature. She did not believe it was "narrower" in any sense. The HAZWHOPPER training can be narrowed. For example, if you had a spill and knew exactly what exposure employees would have, HAZWHOPPER training could be for those who hadn't had training already. It could be very specific and directed towards deficiencies. Number 568 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON surmised that HAZWHOPPER was not just chemical, it could apply to... MS. WARD interjected that it applied to a broad spectrum of hazardous substances. CHAIRMAN KOTT turned to the teleconference line. Number 575 BLAKE JOHNSON, LABORERS LOCAL 341, testified from Anchorage, via teleconference. He stated he would like to see HB 263 passed out of committee, and would also encourage continued work on it so the language would suit everyone. One of his concerns when working out in the field is if the person next to him was adequately trained. If a person carries certification from another state, how do we know that program was adequate. As this work becomes more prevalent, it might be easy to counterfeit certificates, because there is a cost for the training. The costs could run anywhere from $500 to $700. Someone might not hesitate to sell counterfeit cards for $100. This program would be similar to the asbestos certification program and, consequently, they would know they had trained people. There is going to be $50 million to $100 million worth of work per year in Alaska, at a minimum. He asked the committee to pass the bill out so that it could continue through the process. Laborers Local 341 would continue to look at anything that would help to "fine tune" the bill. Number 594 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was anyone else wishing to testify on HB 263. Seeing none, he stated HB 263 was sponsored by the Labor and Commerce Committee. They had received a lot of written testimony in support of the bill, with little opposition. There were comments from both sides regarding a few small problems. His intent was to keep the bill in committee to work with DOL to find some solutions. They would hold the bill in committee. SB 53 - OMNIBUS INSURANCE REFORM Number 610 CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that SB 53 was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Having no one present from that committee, he asked Marianne Burke to give the committee an overview. MARIANNE BURKE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INSURANCE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, testified that CSSB 53(JUD) was a successor bill to SB 362 and HB (indisc.--end of tape) TAPE 95-54, SIDE B Number 000 MS. BURKE continued that these were not passed. SB 53 includes language to address new areas of insurance regulation, it adopts new accreditation standards added by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and makes needed corrections to the insurance statutes. These changes will bring statutes up to date with the insurance market and allow the division to maintain its NAIC accreditation, granted in December of 1992. A zero fiscal note was submitted. MS. BURKE explained that the changes to the bill made between legislative sessions were minor. These include language cleanup to include the 1992 change in license classes from agent and broker to producer, and general agent to managing general agent. It contains the revision of language pertaining to the standard valuation law. The cleanup language replaces a reference to the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, which no longer exists, with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. It adds to acts considered fraudulent insurance acts. The additions include: Falsely altering an insurance document; knowingly possessing a forged insurance document; knowingly issuing a forged insurance document; and establishes penalties for these acts. Number 147 MS. BURKE stated that the bill clarifies that a reciprocal insurer, insuring municipalities or nonprofit utilities or providing marine insurance, do not have to participate in the assigned risk plan for motor risk coverage. It includes the division's actuary and assistant actuary as exempt employees. The bill includes 22 sections related to the NAIC accreditation, such as: Regulation of risk retention groups and purchasing groups as allowed by federal law; modifying the examination hearing provision to allow for closing it to the public under certain circumstances; requiring insurer financial statement filing to the NAIC on electronic media; requiring disclosure by an insurer of material transactions of purchase, disposal of assets or reinsurance; (Indisc). reinsurance; risk based capital provisions; reserve calculations; actuarial opinions; and holding company reporting requirements. It allows the Director to file civil actions for damages caused by violations of statutes by managing general agents, reinsurance and mediary brokers, and reinsurance and mediary managers. It also cleans up the definition of "member insurer" of the Life and Disability Guarantee Association. MS. BURKE continued that some other key provisions include: Authority to respond to catastrophic situations; the ability to suspend the certificate of authority of an insurer for non-renewal; providing for voluntary relinquishment of an Alaska Certificate of Authority by an insurer domiciled in another state; authority to refund or grant credits for overpayment of premium taxes by an insurer due to an error or misinterpretation; provides requirements for licensing of U.S. branches of alien, non U.S. domiciled insurers, to allow these insurers to use Alaska as a base of operation for business written within the United States. It provides authority to require continuing education for licensed insurance (indisc.--coughing); it requires the insurance premium fiduciary accounts of resident insurance licensees to be located in Alaska; it provides that a single fiduciary bond can cover multiple producer office locations; it adds incorporated insurers to the definition of a group to reflect the recent changes at Lloyd's of London; it clarifies when rate changes may be made to outstanding policies; it provides that false statements made in regard to a claim may result in prosecution under Alaska law; it allows the director to specify the format and content of rate and policy form filings made to the Division; it clarifies health insurance coverage for new born and adoptive children; it provides for re- domestication of insurers domiciled in Alaska and moving to another state or, requesting to move their domicile from another state to Alaska; it provides for the voluntary surrender of an Alaska Certificate of Authority by a domestic insurer; it provides the authority to request quarterly financial statements from all entities regulated by the Division; it allows insurers to pay claims by electronic wire transfer; it provides authority to the director to specify requirements for the electronic data; and, it otherwise makes corrections and clarifies statutory provisions. MS. BURKE said the bill also incorporates amendments suggested by the division. A new section was added giving the director discretion to accept an insurers examination report from a nonaccredited state, and it gives the director clear authority to require extra examination supervision if a state was performing substandard examination. She said revisions were made to the section pertaining to risk retention groups to avoid conflicts with federal law. Section 35, dealing with continuing education requirements for insurance licensees, was amended to include language agreed to by the division and the Alaska Independent Agents and Brokers Association. The fraudulent insurance acts provision was modified to reflect recommendations by the DOL. Language was added to various health insurance contracts statutes to make them applicable to health maintenance organizations. The section of (indisc.) independent counsel, conflicts of interest counsel was deleted. This provision was not authored by the division, and legal counsel advised them that it was neither necessary or consistent with the Alaska Supreme Court decision Chi of Alaska, Incorporated versus Employers Reinsurance. The bill was also amended by the Senate Judiciary Committee to remove the Consumer Credit provisions. Senator Taylor agreed to sponsor a separate piece of legislation on consumer credit which would incorporate some of the amendments suggested during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing process. That bill is currently being drafted. MS. BURKE continued that minor wording changes were made in Section 15, changing the reference to a Canadian or British chartered accountant, to make the reference more global. Section 32 was amended to include the wording, "or the aggregate of a series of related transactions", to close a potential holding company reporting loop hole. In Section 82 there was a typo correction, changing the word "and" to "or". Number 191 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to the Chi (indisc.) reference and said the back-up material says page 63. He asked what section was it in? MS. BURKE responded the section had been removed. Number 207 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Chairman Kott what his intentions for the bill were. Number 209 CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that it was his intent, as always, to have a good understanding of the bill before taking action. Number 232 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if there were other committee referrals. Number 233 CHAIRMAN KOTT answered no. Number 237 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG observed this was a very complex bill that needed to be closely looked at. Number 242 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON had a concern about slowing things down on what is purported to be technical changes. He referred to when accreditation comes up and asked what happens if this gets stalled this session. Number 250 MS. BURKE said many of the 22 items listed must be in place by January 1, 1996. Number 254 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he had asked the question because he was in the Department of Commerce at the time the program became accredited. It eased the ability of a state to work with other states on cross jurisdictional matters. It meant that a lot of duplicative things did not need to be done because the program was nationally accredited. He pointed out if this was not done prior to accreditation, it would complicate matters not only for the division but also for insurers who want to do business in the state. REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER joined the meeting at 4:13 p.m. Number 268 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Ward if the provisions were not implemented, was it her interpretation they would lose accreditation or was it that they "may" lose accreditation. MS. BURKE responded "may." CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that it should be on the record that there is no guarantee we would lose accreditation. Number 280 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated he had never looked at a bill like this on the insurance industry. If they were to have a subcommittee on the bill, he would volunteer to be on it. He said he wouldn't feel comfortable at this time to pass the bill out of committee. Number 287 MS. BURKE pointed out SB 53 had also been referred to the House Judiciary Committee; however, there is a memorandum with all members agreeing to waive it from committee. Number 291 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted that this was the same bill that had made it through the system last year; however, for some reason it wasn't passed. There is no one who doesn't like the bill. Number 301 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he did not want to send the bill to subcommittee but would hold the bill over to Wednesday's calendar. He asked committee members to look at any important sections and contact the Division of Insurance if they had questions. HB 270 - RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM Number 312 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked the director from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to give her comments on HB 270. ANNALEE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, testified that HB 270 was one of the key management tools the Administration was seeking to help OMB deal with the state's current fiscal situation. It also addresses the downsizing of state government, not only in as financially effective way as possible, but to also address the needs of employees. She said they have structured the program differently than previous retirement incentive programs (RIP). It is their intention to use it in areas where the position would be not only vacated but eliminated. MS. MCCONNELL said the same sort of program could be used by local governments and school districts, both of which have expressed interest in having the same kind of management tool available to them. The initial plan was to restrict the RIP bill only to those areas where the positions would be eliminated. However, they decided it was a good idea to leave open the possibility of replacing employees in certain situations where they could demonstrate, within a three year time frame, significant savings. This would be implemented in the area of 24 hour institutions, such as pioneer homes or corrections. They would be replacing the employees who are very high on the pay scale with employees at a lower range and step. For example, a guard currently at a 15J level would be replaced by an 11A, for a savings of nearly half the total cost. They shorten the period during which the savings must be demonstrated to three years. They would also insist all costs be taken into account. MS. MCCONNELL pointed out there would be a need for substantial reduction in positions over the next few years. They have recommended a three year window and set it up so this would be applied strategically. She said this was the largest difference between past RIP programs. It is not an across the board RIP, and it would only be used where it could be demonstrated to yield a savings. Departments would have to show this fit not only the financial need for cost savings, but also their operational plans, so services would not be disrupted in order to grant RIP's. It would not be at the discretion of the employee. She would be pleased to address questions the committee might have. Number 384 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if she was comfortable with the CS. MS. MCCONNELL answered yes. It was done as a result of inquiries from local government. The Administration surveyed and found they could handle the expected work load. Number 388 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if she would object to adding the Judicial System. Number 390 MS. MCCONNELL said she would prefer that Mr. Bob Stalnaker speak to the Judicial System question. Number 393 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA observed that on page 7, the window for the school distinct plan was shorter than the window for the state plan. He asked if there was any reason not to expand the window for school districts. Number 397 MS. MCCONNELL explained that they had problems with the mechanics. Since Mr. Stalnaker was the administrator of this, they had worked out the windows so not only would they fit some over all purposes for downsizing, but also they could be sure the Administration could meet its commitments on the administrative end. She said Mr. Stalnaker could speak best to that aspect. Number 403 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked which sections held the provisions for eliminating positions. Number 408 MS. MCCONNELL stated they didn't require that the position be eliminated, although that was their initial intent. This was because of situations like correctional institutions, pioneer homes, and health and human services facilities which require 24 hour care. They realized a substantial savings could still be made even if they replaced those positions. She noted they had submitted a diagram to the State Affairs Committee which outlined the steps they would go through to ensure a cost savings over the three year time period. Number 433 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if the Administration worked with State Affairs on the changes in the CS. Number 438 MS. MCCONNELL answered yes. The changes came from the hearing in State Affairs where a number of communities testified they were interested in having a wider window so they could use the RIP. The initial reason for not having a wider window was they were skeptical about being able to handle all of the administrative work that would be required to do the RIP not only for state employees but also the political subdivisions. As a result of that hearing, the Department of Administration did a quick survey of local communities to find out the work load they could expect. They found they would be able to handle it. Number 451 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if in Section 10 where the separation incentive program was added, would those positions remain unfilled. He also asked if there were positions that people wouldn't be retiring from, but just eliminating the position. Number 457 MS. MCCONNELL replied yes. She said this was a provision she was resistant about initially. However, she spoke to private employers who pointed out that separation incentives are important because often it is the case that the places in need of downsizing, or which present the greatest opportunity for savings, aren't necessarily the places where you have the oldest employees. There are situations where the separation incentive can end up being less expensive for the state than the retirement incentive. Number 477 CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired whether that the Administration had a goal as to where they wanted to be in three to five years, as far as downsizing. Number 479 MS. MCCONNELL responded that the Administration had not yet pegged a specific dollar amount. The long-range fiscal planning commission which is now underway would help look at the issue. She said coming in as a new Administration, they have not yet had a chance to have the commissioners take a look at all the services out there and where the greatest opportunities for savings were located. They also have not had a chance to look at the statutory and regulatory requirements that they might want to propose changing. They plan on having an outline ready with the next budget what addressing what they think makes sense concerning expenditures in the out years. Number 510 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS inquired if the example she used of level 15J being replaced by an 11A was a normal situation. He thought perhaps they would need to replace them with someone closer to experience and longevity. Number 517 MS. MCCONNELL explained that people were moving up the career ladder with greater experience and training. So, although the person leaving would be at a 15J, the new person replacing him would be at the bottom. Other employees already would have gone through those steps. They wouldn't be replacing a large chunk of experience with inexperienced people. In the case of corrections, for example, you would still maintain the experience and training in the work force to continue to get the job done right. Number 531 CHAIRMAN KOTT commented on having sat through another session of budget hearings, and most of the departments which testified commented they were stretching themselves thin. The personnel cuts, over the years, have gotten to the point where they can't fulfill their statutorily required actions. Without making substantial cuts in programs, he doesn't think the departments can absorb any more personnel losses. Number 546 MS. MCCONNELL concurred this was the general feeling among the commissioners. They've gotten to the point where they need to address which functions are no longer as necessary as they have been in the past. She said the effort has begun, and in some area proposals are coming forward, such as with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Number 560 CHAIRMAN KOTT said this was commendable. He added that with over 20,000 employees out there, he hoped the people advocating and pushing this legislation wouldn't think for an instant they would cut 5000 employees without wholesale changes in the way business is conducted in the state. The RIP will satisfy some requirements; however, they won't see a 20 percent reduction in the state work force. MS. MCCONNELL agreed and added it was important not to have expectations out of line. They want them to be challenging expectations, not unrealistic. Number 568 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS inquired if there were more state employees today than in May, 1994. Number 569 MS. MCCONNELL replied she wasn't sure about the number for 1994. There are places where there have been increases, such as in Child Support Enforcement. There were 31 enforcement officers added during the course of last year and many of those were added with federal funds. She said as the federal government changes its requirements, they still don't know where these changes will come. However, they may affect areas of state government. They need to be prepared to address those. Number 584 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if there were any significant areas that were downsized. MS. MCCONNELL said she wasn't aware of one particular area where the number went down. There were more positions in this year's budget than in last year's budget, attributable to a combination of child support enforcement, totally revenue supported positions, and capital funded positions. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were more questions for Ms. McConnell. Hearing none, he asked the representative from the Alaska Marine Highway to join them at the table. Number 594 PHYLLIS OLSTA, STEWARD, ALASKA MARINE HIGHWAY SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, testified that all employees of the ferry system were members of the union. The terms of the new contract are not as generous as the contracts prior to 1986. Her vacation benefit is $3,100 a year more than employees hired at this time. She said she is at the age where she could continue working for another five or six years. The person replacing her would receive no more than 35 hours a month vacation. The employees working in this system would be younger, receiving less benefits, supporting the economy, building homes, sending their children to school and other things that would be much more cost effective than older employees, who are not stimulating the Alaskan economy in such a manner. Number 611 JIM TEDFORD, PARENT, read the following statement: "To whom it may concern: Alaska is no longer the land of plenty. We all have to learn to get by with less, but we should try to minimize the impact on our children. Today most school districts are in a financial bind. Class sizes are growing and education is suffering. HB 270 offers a partial solution to this crisis in funding. A retirement incentive program would free up thousands of dollars that school districts could use to better educate our children. Please move HB 270 expeditiously through the legislative process so RIP can be in place before the end of the school year. Thank you." Number 624 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Mr. Bob Stalnaker, Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration, why on page 7, lines 4 and 5, the time span for school districts was so short. Number 629 BOB STALNAKER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, answered that the time window is the same as in the previous two RIPs. It is designed to cover two school years. TAPE 95-55, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if their plan had to be submitted between the end of June, and the end of the year, they then could then retire at the end of this school year and the end of the next school year. MR. STALNAKER said this was correct. By having a June 30, as the application date, a person can apply and then be retired on July 1, for this school year. By having it in July, they can apply June 30 next year to be retired by July 1 of the following year, which would give them the latitude of two school years. Number 018 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he was thinking specifically of Delta Junction, currently in the process of base closure over the next three years. Because they have the three year closure plan, he asked if it would be objectionable to extend the date of August 1, 1996 to 1997. Number 034 MR. STALNAKER responded that first and foremost they have always looked at this as a tool. They have been diligent in making it revenue neutral to the systems, by identifying the full cost up front. If the employer can better utilize the tool by extending it another year for school districts, the retirement system wouldn't have an objection. It would expand the number of teachers for all school districts which would qualify, giving them more latitude in phasing it through. Number 048 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated they would still have to file their plan before the end of this calendar year. MR. STALNAKER said this was correct. Number 051 JACK KREINHEDER, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, stated that when the bill was being drafted, they discussed it with representatives from the education community. The concerns some school districts have with extending the window are that they have problems they need to address now. They want as many teachers who might be able to participate now to do so, but teachers, given the option of another year, may stay on the payroll for another two years. School districts could address this by saying if they are eligible for the program they must use it now. Only teachers not eligible will be able to use it down the road. Number 074 MR. STALNAKER concurred with Mr. Kreinheder. In previous RIPs, some school districts have offered cash incentives to entice teachers to retire during the first year instead of the second. He said they haven't heard from school districts that they don't like the window. They have heard from the employees that they would like the longer window period in which to strategically use it themselves. Number 091 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if he had an objection in including the Judicial System in this bill. He asked, "Are they under your purview or are they a separate retirement system?" MR. STALNAKER responded that it was a separate retirement system, but felt this would be fine. Number 101 MARK LIVINGSTON, testified from Ketchikan via teleconference in support of HB 270. He read the following statement: "Recently Ketchikan School District has had to cut many educational programs. The school district is looking at a $200,000 plus deficit. Next year, the funding unit will be at $61,000, and they're talking about a funding unit cut to $59,000. Because classroom teaching positions are based on school enrollment, teaching positions cannot be eliminated or reduced much, at least hopefully, more than it already has been. If retiring teachers are replaced with teachers at the low end of the pay scale, school districts will save a substantial amount of money. According to the Ketchikan School District business manager there are approximately 40 teachers eligible to retire now. If a retirement incentive program were passed, Ketchikan School District could save from $67,452 to $85,716 for each retiring teacher over a three year period. Within the last decade, 75 percent of the largest U.S. companies have offered early retirement options. This comes out of U.S. News and World Report, dated November, 1991. I think that's a pretty good endorsement considering corporate America's search for a better bottom line. The retirement incentive bill is one of the more viable options available to save money. Thank you." Number 139 GARY BLOOMQUIST, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF KODIAK, testified from Kodiak via teleconference. He stated that in 1992, they made efforts to gear their budgeting and personnel policies to accomplish significant savings in the long term. He said anyone being replaced in Kodiak would be replaced at a step A rather than a step I. In 1992, they eliminated longevity pay for all new hires, expecting to get the benefit of the elimination of longevity pay over a seven to ten year period. All new employees would be hired with nine days less vacation per year. In order to budget and maintain minimal staffing levels they use overtime. Beginning April 1, 1992, they established part payment for dependent medical coverage. They have 32 people that would be eligible out of a total employment force of 107. The estimates show that 16 of those would leave. He said they would hate to lose them all at one time. He said he very much appreciates the effort that has gone on in the House to extend the period and move the date to an earlier date. It appears the savings for Kodiak in the first year would conservatively exceed $200,000. They would like to take advantage of this as soon as possible. The major concern they have is the Senate has merged SB 137 into SB 148, and the savings could be denied to them if the retirement bill alone isn't allowed to proceed as the retirement bill. He said they would appreciate any advice the committee might have, and thanked them for their time. Number 175 CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired how the two Senate bills were intertwined. Number 177 MR. BLOOMQUIST replied, "As of this morning SB 137, which is the House's HB 270 as was amended in the House and moved onto this committee, was merged into SB 148 which, in effect, is a new retirement program. There is now a single SB 148 and SB 137 has gone no where. REPRESENTATIVES KOTT and Kubina both commented: "The plot thickens." Number 187 CHAIRMAN KOTT believed that bill to be in the Senate Finance Committee. Number 191 MR. BLOOMQUIST believed the bill passed out of the Finance Committee this morning. He said their understanding was that SB 148 is controversial enough and hasn't had the full discussion that HB 270 has had and could possibly cause the demise of the RIP bill. Number 207 CHAIRMAN KOTT added that very seldom do they follow what's going on in "the Dark Side". He asked Representative Porter to comment, having chaired the subcommittee on HB 270. Number 213 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated the subcommittee of the State Affairs Committee came away with the impression that HB 270 was designed to do exactly what they were touting it to do. The mechanism is in place to review and make sure it does that. The bill doesn't guarantee the budgets of affected divisions and departments would go down. That is the function of the legislature in the years to come, to take the reports HB 270 requires to be submitted and find out if the budgets don't come down, and what the cause is. Number 234 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA offered Amendment 1, to include the Judiciary System. Number 247 CHAIRMAN KOTT objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA told the committee it would be the entire Section 9. This is the same language that was in the Senate version. Number 266 CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired if he was removing Section 9. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA replied no. He would be inserting in the title the words: "The Judicial Retirement System", and on page 7, line 20, adding the entire Section 9 of his amendment, It would be adding a new Section 9, and renumbering the subsequent sections. Number 278 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if he was adding a new Section 8. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA replied, a new Section 9. CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that starting at line 20 would be a new Section 8. Number 279 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA apologized and said it would be a new Section 8 and 9. However, he just wanted a new Section 9. Numb 290 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he could amend the amendment starting on page 1, line 27, insert the amendment of Section 9, and renumber the subsequent sections. He asked if this was the intent of the amendment. Number 297 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said this was correct. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was someone present from the Court System who would like to comment on this. Number 302 ART SNOWDEN, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, said he hadn't yet seen the language in this amendment. However, if it was the same language as is contained in the Senate bill, it would allow the administrative director of courts to participate in the RIP if there is a savings to the state. This language was in the past two or three RIPs that had been introduced in the legislature. If there isn't a monetary savings, the administrative director wouldn't be allowed to use the RIP. This has to be approved by the Chief Justice. It doesn't give the administrative director anymore years towards retirement. It just lets him get older. This has been in the previous two RIP bills, and the Senate put it in their version. The Supreme Court supports this. Number 319 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were questions for Mr. Snowden and added that it was Mr. Snowden's birthday. Number 328 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the rest of the Judicial System was involved in this. MR. SNOWDEN replied no. There would be no savings. All other court employees are in the bill under the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). There is an Administrative Director's Retirement Act in the state. To allow himself to participate in the RIP, there has to be specific reference to that act. It has the same mandate as every other part of the bill. If there's no savings, it cannot be done. Number 337 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection to Amendment 1. Number 340 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that it was his birthday tomorrow and wondered what he was going to get. Number 347 CHAIRMAN KOTT replied there would be no Labor and Commerce Committee meeting. Hearing no objections to Amendment 1, it was adopted. He added that he planned on ordering a CS and bringing it back before the committee on Wednesday. Number 348 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he wouldn't resist moving HB 270, as amended. Number 350 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked the committee members if they were comfortable with the incorporated language. Number 353 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said this was a straight forward amendment. It comes from the "other side." He didn't have a problem with it. Number 355 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA wondered what games were being played with them changing the amendment. He would like to see this make it to the Finance Committee. Number 360 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move the CSHB 270(STA) as amended, with accompanying fiscal notes. Number 362 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection to moving the CSHB 270(STA) as amended. He noted the House Labor and Commerce Committee will work on a new CS in incorporating Amendment 1. I would then become CSHB 270(L&C). Hearing no objection, the CSHB 270(L&C) was moved. HB 109 - TELEPHONE DIRECTORY LISTING/SOLICITATION Number 369 CHAIRMAN KOTT said the committee would now readdress HB 109. Number 373 REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN testified that HB 109 would address telephone solicitations which are often an annoyance and intrusive. She feels the legislature has broad direction to be concerned about the privacy of Alaskans and to take proactive actions to implement that provision of the constitution. HB 109 provides that a local exchange telephone company would be required to offer the opportunity to identify oneself in the phone book as not wishing to receive solicitations. She said on page 2, line 13, there is a list of actions which would not be covered. This includes: Calls made in response to a request or inquiry by the customer who was called; calls made by a charitable organization, public agency or volunteer; calls limited to polling or soliciting the expression of ideas, opinions or votes; and business to business calls or people seeking business from prior customers. The penalty for a violation would be a finding of an unfair trade practice, covered under Title 45.50, which would only come about should the Attorney General get enough complaints to bring an action. The law would then provide for a civil fine of $5,000 per violation. REPRESENTATIVE BROWN distributed an amendment suggested by General Communications, Incorporated (GCI) which would address concerns telemarketers have expressed. She said if they had a computerized list of people not interested in being called, it could be sorted against the other computerized list they're working with. If implemented, this system would not only benefit the privacy of people not wishing to be contacted, but it also would benefit the sellers because they wouldn't be wasting their time calling people who don't intend to purchase in this manner. Number 416 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN pointed out there was a federal law passed in 1991 or 1992, implemented by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1992. She does not feel this federal law has cut down on the amount of uninvited solicitations. She has asked phone solicitors who have contacted her, and found several to be unaware of the federal law. They couldn't respond to items required by that law. Number 428 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked how telemarketers currently obtain lists of numbers, and if it was just from telephone books. Number 430 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN responded she was not certain of all sources where such lists might be generated. Number 437 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA wondered what happened if you distributed numbers of people who didn't want to be solicited. Could those be private numbers? Number 441 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN stated it would not affect private or unlisted numbers. This was intended to be a kind of compromise so that you could still have a public number listed in the directory, however, it would have a "dot" by the name saying "solicitors, don't call me." People who chose to have unlisted numbers would be relying on the federal law. Number 452 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if this affected pollsters. Number 453 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN said it did not. They are specifically exempted on page 2, lines 21 and 22. Number 458 CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that he seldom watches TV. However, there was a show regarding telemarketers that caught his eye. If you are solicited, you may ask to be placed on the non call list. As long as you have the person's name, what time it was, and a brief summary of what took place, it would be a violation if they call you again. Number 467 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN said that is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The difficulty there is that every telemarketer in the country could call, each one keeping a separate list. With HB 109 you would be putting people on notice that you don't want these calls and it would be their burden to obtain the lists. Number 475 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he didn't know anyone who liked to be solicited. He asked if it would be advantageous to have the telephone companies put the dot next to the people who wanted to be called. Number 480 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN commented this was probably more of a problem in urban areas where there is a big enough market to show up on some computer sorting where they do it by zip code. "You're paying for a little bit of privacy protection." Number 485 CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the staff had advised him he may have problems with the first amendment on this idea; so, he would withdraw that idea. Number 490 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if she considered expanding the bill to include mail catalogs. He said he had two trees a month arriving at his home. Number 496 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if a religious organization was a charitable organization. He would hope they were not. Number 505 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN replied that the things prohibited if you had the "do not call me dot," includes people who are trying to get you to buy something or to make a donation. She said if the religious organization were soliciting donations, this would not be allowed. However, they could ask you to attend services. Number 511 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER interjected there were additional qualifications. This doesn't allow charitable organizations to call out of hand. You have to be a member of the organization or have made a previous donation or expressed an interest. Number 514 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he had an amendment distributed by Representative Brown. He would move Amendment 1. He asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, Amendment 1 was adopted. He said this would be adopted in the form of a CS at some point. Number 520 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he had heard the bill last year and wouldn't feel uncomfortable moving it, as amended. Number 526 CHAIRMAN KOTT said they had a scheduling problem. In accordance with AS 24.08.035, they could not move the bill without a fiscal note. Number 527 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN responded they were not informed until Thursday afternoon the bill was going to be heard Friday. This was the reason they had not requested it. They do have a fiscal note for last year's version of the legislation of HB 54. That fiscal note was zero. CHAIRMAN KOTT stated he wouldn't have a problem moving HB 109 from committee and holding it in committee until they had received the fiscal note. If it is other than zero he would bring the bill back before the committee. Number 530 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made the motion to move CSHB 109(L&C) out of committee Number 533 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any objections to moving CSHB 109(L&C) with the understanding it would be held in committee until a fiscal note was received. It would then be transmitted to the Chief Clerk. Hearing no objection, the motion carried. Number 537 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Labor and Commerce Committee, Chairman Kott adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m.