Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/15/1994 09:20 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 15, 1994
9:20 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-94, #25, Side 1 (000-end)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Drue Pearce, Co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:20 a.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chairs Pearce and Frank, Senators Kelly,
and Rieger were present. Senators Sharp and Jacko joined
the meeting after it was in progress. Senator Kerttula was
absent.
ALSO ATTENDING: Josh Fink, aide to Senator Kelly; Portia
Babcock, aide to Senator Leman and Senate State Affairs
Committee, sponsor of SJR 39; Dean J. Guaneli, Chief, Legal
Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law;
Dugan Petty, Director, Division of General Services,
Department of Administration; Clyde Stoltzfus, Special
Assistant, Commissioner's Office, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities; Jerry Gallagher,
Legislative Liaison, Department of Natural Resources; and
Mike Greany, Director, Legislative Finance Division; aides
to committee members and other members of the legislature.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
CSSB 212(L&C): An Act relating to the giving of procurement
notices; changing the content of the required
procurement reports to the legislature by the
commissioner of administration; relating to
publications produced by state agencies;
establishing an innovative construction
procurement methods pilot program; and
establishing legislative findings, a
legislative purpose, and legislative intent
for state procurement; and providing for an
effective date.
Josh Fink, aide to Senator Kelly and the
Labor & Commerce Committee, sponsor of SB
212, testified in support of the bill.
Amendment 1 by Co-chair Pearce was ADOPTED
with no objections. CSSB 212(FIN) was
REPORTED OUT of committee with a "do pass,"
a zero fiscal notes for the Department of
Administration, a fiscal note for the
Department of Administration-Statewide for
$256.1, and a fiscal note for the Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities in the
amount of $5.0.
SJR 39: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the State of Alaska to guarantee, in addition
to the right of the people to keep and bear
arms as approved by the voters at the time of
ratification of the state Constitution, that
the individual right to keep and bear arms
shall not be denied or infringed by the state
or a political subdivision of the state.
Portia Babcock, aide to Senator Leman,
sponsor of SJR 39, testified in support of
the resolution. Dean Guaneli, Chief,
Department of Law, testified to his concerns
for existing laws if the Constitution was
amended. He stated that SJR 1 was preferred
by the Department of Law and the
administration in general. SJR 39 was
REPORTED OUT of committee with a "do pass"
and a zero fiscal note from the Department of
Public Safety, and a fiscal note in the
amount of $2.2 from the Office of the
Governor, Division of Elections.
CSSB 210(RES): An Act relating to disposals of state land
within five miles of the right-of-way of the
Dalton Highway to a licensed public utility
or a licensed common carrier; relating to
disposals of state land for nonresidential
development in nodes of development along the
Dalton Highway; and allowing state leases and
materials sales for construction or
maintenance of airports along the Dalton
Highway.
Senator Sharp, sponsor of SB 210, testified
in support of the bill. Amendment 1 by
Senator Sharp was ADOPTED with no objections.
CSSB 210(FIN) was REPORTED OUT of committee
with a "do pass" and zero fiscal notes for
the Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 212(L&C):
An Act relating to the giving of procurement notices;
changing the content of the required procurement
reports to the legislature by the commissioner of
administration; relating to publications produced by
state agencies; establishing an innovative construction
procurement methods pilot program; and establishing
legislative findings, a legislative purpose, and
legislative intent for state procurement; and providing
for an effective date.
CO-CHAIR PEARCE announced that CSSB 212(L&C) was before the
committee. She invited Josh Fink, aide to Senator Kelly and
the Labor & Commerce Committee, sponsor of SB 212, to come
before the committee.
JOSH FINK said that SB 212, termed the "buy Alaskan"
legislation, had several components. The idea behind the
bill was that the state is one of the largest purchasers of
goods and services in the state purchasing everything from
road design and construction services to copy machines and
paper and pencils. This bill aimed to strengthen Alaska's
economy by increasing the share of State government
contracts going to Alaskan businesses. This bill would
establish an Innovative Construction Procurement Methods
pilot program within Dept. of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF) for a period of two years to implement
an Alaska Bonus Program to replace the current preferences.
He went on to say that current incentives include the
Alaskan Bidders Preference, Alaska Subcontracting,
Disadvantage Business Enterprises/Equal Employment
Opportunity programs, Alaska Products Preference, and the
Alaska Hire Program. The latter two were largely
unworkable, under-utilized, or not utilized at all.
Allowing DOT/PF to test, on a trial basis, a bonus system
which provided bonuses at project completion and encouraged
the same policy goals would be more economically beneficial
for vendors, reduce administrative costs and bid protests,
and could likely be used in joint federal/state projects
where state preferences were currently not allowed.
The commissioner would establish this program through
regulation and report to the legislature on the program's
progress 15 to 27 months after implementation. If
successful, the legislature could expand and extend the
program indefinitely, replacing current preferences.
Lastly, this bill incorporates a number of provisions from
the "Make-It-Alaskan" legislation from the 17th Legislature,
HB 245, which would also increase the amount of state work
going to Alaskans. This bill would: 1) encourage
procurement officers to restrict notice of contract
solicitation to Alaskan suppliers and providers of services
desiring to compete for state contract work (this practice
is already standard in DOT/PF); 2) require the commissioner
to include in his report to the legislature on state
procurements, the number of bidders located in-state and
out-of-state that bid or made proposals on procurements;
and, 3) replace the statutory requirement that state
publications be produced at state-operated facilities with a
requirement that state publications be produced at a private
sector facility located in the state when practicable. In
addition, standards for the production of publications would
be established by the Dept. of Administration, and a cost
box would be required for all publication's exceeding
$1,500. With that, he concluded his testimony.
In answer to Co-chair Frank, Mr. Fink said that page 4, line
29, is where the section relating to printing of
publications began. Co-chair Pearce believed this was the
same language used in Co-chair Frank's bill that was in the
house.
Co-chair Pearce stated that amendment #1 was before the
committee. She said it strengthened the cost box portion of
SB 212. She said that it was not aimed at the Division of
Tourism's planner because it was not required by statute.
This was aimed at annual reports required by law from state
agencies.
SENATOR KELLY MOVED for adoption of amendment #1. Hearing
no objection, it was ADOPTED.
Senator Kelly MOVED for passage of CSSB 212(FIN) from
committee with individual recommendations. No objection
having been raised, CSSB 212(FIN) was REPORTED OUT of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation, a zero fiscal
note for the Department of Administration, a fiscal note for
the Department of Administration-Statewide for $256.1, and a
fiscal note for the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities in the amount of $5.0. Co-chairs Pearce and
Frank, Senators Kelly, Sharp and Jacko voted "do pass."
Senator Rieger voted "no recommendation."
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 39:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska to guarantee, in addition to the right of the
people to keep and bear arms as approved by the voters
at the time of ratification of the state Constitution,
that the individual right to keep and bear arms shall
not be denied or infringed by the state or a political
subdivision of the state.
Co-chair Pearce announced that SJR 39 was before the
committee. She invited Portia Babcock, aide to Senator
Leman and Senate State Affairs Committee, sponsor of SJR 39,
to come before committee.
PORTIA BABCOCK said that SJR 39 was introduced by the Senate
State Affairs Committee to better guarantee the individual
right to keep and bear arms in the future for the state of
Alaska. In the past ten years this issue had come up and in
polls taken it was estimated that 78-90 percent of Alaskans
supported this resolution and supported the ability to vote
on changing the Constitution to better guarantee the
individual right to keep and bear arms. There was currently
no Alaska Supreme Court interpretation of the language in
Article I, Section 19. It was commonly and generally
understood that it did protect the individual right to keep
and bear arms. Hearings had been held during the interim in
the Senate State Affairs Committee where 750 people
testified and 1500 letters, poms and testimony were received
in support of this resolution. The municipality of
Anchorage and Fairbanks Northstar Borough passed resolutions
in support of the amendment for the individual right to keep
and bear arms. There were currently resolutions pending in
the Mat-su Borough as well as the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
SENATOR RIEGER asked if this amendment was to pass, how
would it effect the concealed weapons law that the state had
on the books at present. Ms. Babcock said it should not
effect that law, however, it had not been challenged under
the Alaska Supreme Court so there have no idea how the
current language would be interpreted. Senator Rieger asked
if it had been discussed in the Senate State Affairs
Committee whether the addition of this language would
prohibit the state from exercising any kind of statutory
restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon. Ms. Babcock
said it had been discussed but the impact was unknown since
the court had not interpreted the language. She said no one
knew the answer. Senator Rieger asked the intent of the
resolution. Ms. Babcock said she thought the intent was to
keep very unreasonable restrictions on regulations that were
needed for the public to insure it as a constitutional
protection, a stronger and clearer standard for the right to
keep and bear arms. The court would have to balance the
state's police power with the individual's constitutional
right to keep and bear arms.
Senator Rieger felt that it seemed that the intent was that
the courts not take the resolution literally and he was not
comfortable with that.
DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief, Legal Services Section, Criminal
Division, Department of Law, came before committee and said
that the Department of Law, Department of Public Safety, and
the Alaska Police Chief's Association opposed this
resolution in its present form. The legislature over the
years had provided Alaska citizens with the most liberal
firearms' laws in the country. Firearms could be carried
openly anywhere in the state with the exception of bars and
schools. Firearms could be carried concealed while hunting,
fishing, while in your home, and on property adjacent to
your home. He felt there really was no need to amend the
Constitution.
Mr. Guaneli heard people testify in the last hearing that
this resolution was a preventive measure. The question to
ask was what a citizen would receive with this amendment.
Was it only preventive maintenance and an attempt to fix a
problem that did not exist? He felt that was not much. The
question he would like to answer was what is the risk. He
submitted that several of Alaska's weapons laws would be
thrown into doubt and may be held unconstitutional. One law
prohibited the possession of switchblades and would be in
doubt if the amendment passed. The Oregon Supreme court
struck down a similar law based on their Constitutional
right to bear arms. There were laws that prohibit felons
from possessing firearms. Even if you were a non-violent
felon, you were prohibited from touching a handgun for ten
years or living in a household where a handgun was being
kept. The state of Colorado struck down portions of their
laws. The statutes prohibiting carrying concealed weapons
would be in doubt if this amendment should pass. Some
speakers have said that this amendment would allow people to
carry assault weapons or military-type weapons. He felt
that an amendment should not be passed if the interpretation
was not clear. In referring to Senator Leman's wish for
simple and direct language, Mr. Guaneli felt this resolution
did not give the court enough to go on for intent.
In 1972, voters passed the right to privacy. Three years
later that law said that the right to privacy meant the
state could not enforce its marijuana laws in someone's
home. That kind of interpretation could happen with this
amendment. This right to privacy had effected the search
and seizure procedures. He felt the voters had not intended
to hamper police investigations. He said that he had been
called a Nazi and ultra-liberal. He felt he was giving a
middle-of-the-road view of the potential problems at risk
with this amendment. He submitted SJR 1 was a better
approach if the legislature deemed it necessary to amend the
Constitution. SJR 1 included a second section to the
Constitution that gave the court a little guidance in how it
was to interpret this provision. It said it did not change
any law that was in effect nor the judicial standard that
had been applied to firearms laws.
SENATOR SHARP asked if federal law would prevail over state
laws. Mr. Guaneli agreed but said that the feds had, as a
practical matter, very little presence in Alaska. The U.S.
Attorney's Office was small and simply not enforcing federal
laws such as the marijuana laws.
Senator Sharp said Representative Foster might disagree with
that statement. He asked if this would allow municipalities
the ability to pass more restrictive laws. Mr. Guaneli
agreed that municipalities could pass firearms laws which
were broader than the state laws but it was unclear if the
amendment would prohibit that ability. Some supporters of
this amendment have said that they want precisely that to
happen, that municipalities would be unable to enact firearm
laws. He pointed out that problems in downtown Anchorage
might be drastically different than in a rural area, and the
local municipality should be given the opportunity to
address those local problems.
Co-chair Pearce asked if the Municipal League was in support
of SJR 39. Ms. Babcock said she did not know.
Co-chair Pearce asked Mr. Guaneli for the official position
of the administration. He said that the administration
agreed with the Department of Law and the Department of
Public Safety in that there were problems with SJR 39 and
preferred SJR 1. This position had been consistent
throughout this administration and past ones for the last
ten years.
CO-CHAIR FRANK voiced his opinion that the collective
"individual" was represented by the National Guard and that
the key word in this amendment was "individual." He
personally felt that it was important for individuals to
have the right to keep and bear arms. He did not see any
heightened protection in this amendment but a clarification
that it was an individual rather than a collective right.
He agreed that it was unknown what the courts would do. He
voiced his opinion that as we move into an area of increased
government activity regarding attempts to control crime, it
was important to keep "individual" rights.
Mr. Guaneli said that was a good point. He said that in
past years there had been suggestions for amendments. He
listed some of the proposed language. The word "reasonable"
was unacceptable to people. The courts look largely at
language used in voter pamphlets and the history behind the
legislation. He said that he fears for the few laws
aforementioned or any new laws that might be enacted.
Discussion followed between Co-chair Frank and Mr. Guaneli
regarding court opinions, possible intent and how it would
effect existing laws. Mr. Guaneli said when the
Constitution was changed, the courts said that had to mean
something. It meant that the way the Constitution was
interpreted would change, so instead of a reasonable basis
test, the legislature wanted to apply some higher standard
of scrutiny. In other words, take a harder look at these
laws. By simply inserting the word "individual", the court
may say it elevated this right. If it did not elevate it
what was the purpose of amending the Constitution. The
Court would look at this question. If it was merely a
matter of philosophy, then he recommended passing SJR 1.
Senator Sharp MOVED for passage of SJR 39 out of committee
with individual recommendations. No objection having been
raised, SJR 39 was REPORTED OUT of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation, a zero fiscal note for the Department
of Public Safety, and a fiscal note for the Office of the
Governor/Division of Elections for $2.2. Co-chairs Pearce
and Frank, Senators Kelly, Sharp and Jacko voted "do pass."
Senator Rieger voted "no recommendation."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 210(RES):
An Act relating to disposals of state land within five
miles of the right-of-way of the Dalton Highway to a
licensed public utility or a licensed common carrier;
relating to disposals of state land for nonresidential
development in nodes of development along the Dalton
Highway; and allowing state leases and materials sales
for construction or maintenance of airports along the
Dalton Highway.
Co-chair Pearce invited Senator Sharp to speak to SB 210.
Senator Sharp stated that under current statute the state
was prohibited from disposing of or leasing state land
within 5 miles of the right-of-way of the Dalton Highway.
The state owned many acres that could not be leased or sold.
These acres had recently been transferred from the federal
to the state under the state selection process. He
explained that the extreme limitations on state land did not
recognize or allow for public need on the newly acquired
state land. He went on to explain problems with both
existing and new leases to utilities. He said this bill
would enable telephone service, other utilities and airport
and highway and other public service needs to be addressed.
He urged favorable consideration of SB 210.
Senator Sharp explained that his proposed amendment 1 would
tighten the title enough to allow for reconstruction and
maintenance of state highways and on page 2 would delete the
words "the highway north of 68 degrees north latitude" and
adds the words "or construction or maintenance of airports."
End SFC-94 #25, Side 1
Begin SFC-94 #25, Side 2
Senator Rieger asked for a definition of a development node.
Co-chair Frank believed that the BLM had been designated for
service development.
CLYDE STOLTZFUS, Special Assistant, Commissioner's Office,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities came before
the committee to answer Senator Rieger's question. He said
that BLM, in setting up a management scheme for the
corridor, established eight development nodes. A node was a
land area set aside to be managed for development. Co-chair
Frank felt that the regulation would prevent the private
sector from building restaurants or gas stations just
anywhere. Mr. Stoltzfus said he did not know the size of a
node but BLM managed them and it was constricted to a
certain size.
JERRY GALLAGHER, Legislative Liaison, Department of Natural
Resources, said that there were maps available that showed
the development nodes. The bill identified specific
development nodes by name and were shown on this map.
Distinct areas comprised several sections. These sections
of state owned land were available along the corridor,
comprised of several thousand acres, and generally south of
the Brooks Range. Co-chair Pearce said the nodes were not
necessarily by pump stations. They represented currently
developed activities along the corridor for either road and
airport maintenance, or road service facilities, such as,
fish & game camps, gravel sites, etc.
Senator Rieger asked the pattern going up the Dalton
Highway. Mr. Gallagher confirmed that it was state-owned
land that was being permitted for development. BLM land was
not. He said it was especially true south of the divide on
the Brooks Range. Yukon Crossing and Coldfoot were
essentially the only state-owned land.
Senator Rieger said he felt that BLM had drawn a line around
the outside state-owned and said, this was the development
node. Mr. Gallagher felt it was a fair assessment.
Senator Sharp MOVED for adoption of amendment 1. No
objections being heard, amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
CO-CHAIR FRANK MOVED for passage of CSSB 210(FIN). No
objections being heard, CSSB 210(FIN) was REPORTED OUT of
committee with a "do pass", and zero fiscal notes for the
Department of Natural Resources and the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities. Co-chairs Pearce and
Frank, Senators Jacko and Sharp signed a "do pass."
Senators Kelly and Rieger signed "no recommendation."
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|