Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/17/1998 08:15 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 17 February 1998 8:15 a.m. TAPES SFC-98, #32, Side A and B CALL TO ORDER Senator Drue Pearce, Co-chair, convened the meeting at approximately 8:15 a.m. PRESENT In addition to Co-chair Pearce, Senators Phillips, Torgerson and Parnell were present when the meeting was convened. Senator Donley arrived shortly thereafter. Senators Sharp and Adams were not present. Also Attending: John Wheatley, Executive Vice President, Willis Corroon Corporation of Anchorage; Nico Bus, Administrative Services Manager, Division of Support Services, Department of Natural Resources; Dennis Poshard, Legislative Liaison, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; Mary Gore, aide to Senator Mike Miller and Area Director for the Juneau Special Olympics; Sue Edelman, MLA, Yukon Territory Delegation; Jeff Jahnke, State Forester, Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources; Brian Sonner, Special Assistant, office of the Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources; aides to committee members and other members of the Legislature. Via Teleconference: Henry Springer, Executive Director, Associated General Contractors, Anchorage; Jim Blasingame, Alaska Railroad, Anchorage; Bill Hupprich, Associate General Counsel, Alaska Railroad, Anchorage; John Eng, President, Cornerstone Construction, Anchorage; Keith Laufer, Alaska Industrial and Export Authority, Anchorage; Dean Brown, Deputy Director, Management, Central Office, Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage; and Martha Welbourn, Deputy Director, Operations, Central Office, Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage. SUMMARY INFORMATION SENATE BILL NO. 285 "An Act relating to state procurement practices." Co-chair Pearce first called SB 285 and indicated that this bill was introduced by the Senate Finance Committee at the request of Associated General Contractors. Present was Mr. John Wheatley from Associated General Contractors. She also noted that there was a sponsor statement by the Senate Finance Committee in the packets as filed. On line via teleconference were Henry Springer, Executive Director, Associated General Contractors and John Eng also with Associated General Contractors. John Wheatley, Executive Vice President, Willis Corron Corporation was invited to join the committee. He said the company he was with was one of the largest commercial insurers and construction surety bond brokers in the State. He is also Legislative chair for the Associated General Contractors this year. He thanked the committee for allowing him to testify in favour of SB 285. He said currently, when highway improvements were needed, a project was designed, advertised and a contract was awarded for the work. He explained that when a highway being improved crossed a railroad track, the Alaska Railroad had input and the Department of Transportation negotiated a force account cost plus contract with the Alaska Railroad for that work. This would reduce the amount of work for the private sector and removed tax dollars from a competitive bid. He further said that they supported SB 285 which would require the Alaska Railroad to utilize the competitive bid process and would establish a fair and effective manner to award contracts for projects that cross the railroad. Senator Phillips said perhaps the opposite argument against the bill would be the safety aspect. He noted that apparently the railroad workers felt more qualified. Mr. Wheatley responded saying the work was inspected, built to specifications, therefore satisfying the safety issue. In response to further question from Senator Phillips he indicated that inspections were done by the State inspectors. Senator Parnell asked if these were contracts DOT was putting out or the railroad? Mr. Wheatley responded that it was DOT. He asked if they would require contractors to have experience and be licensed and insured to cover any potential problems that may arise? Mr. Wheatley agreed it was typical. Senator Parnell further inquired that as part of the procurement process sufficient experience would be required to award the contract otherwise they would not allow just anyone to obtain the bid? Mr. Wheatley stated that as pointed out, public contracts, particularly Department of Transportation contracts, require the contractors to provide surety bonds that guarantee performance of the work. Henry Springer, Executive Director, Associated General Contractors testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said one of the key points in AGC by-laws and regulations was that they subscribe to open competitive bidding processes. He pointed out that categorically, contractors could build anything anyone wanted to have built. If it was something highly specialized or not in the general scope of work there were a variety of specialty contractors who perform those specialties in all categories, usually as subcontractors to general contractors. Everyone knows that the Alaska Railroad is not a purely public entity, however DOT is and they receive public funds out of the highway trust funds through the Federal Highway Administration. Consequently they are bound to abide by different procurement regulations, including in the State of Alaska, the State Procurement Code. The work being questioned was those areas where a State highway or a Federal registered highway crossed a railroad right-of-way. This was not different than any other work that needed to be done when the owner is not DOT or the State of Alaska. Included would be different private entities, native lands and such. In general, he said, it was DOT's work over railroad land in agreement with the railroad, if it pertained to bridges and overpasses. He voiced concern, however, when it came to railroad crossings that were at the level of the track. What typically happened was that DOT made an agreement with the Alaska Railroad and gave the money to the railroad. There is no true check and balance system regarding what would be the best price for the work in regards to public policy. The only way to find out is to put the project out to bid. In cases where there are restrictions placed or unsolicited, basically agreed upon agreements together, it was always more expensive; the excuse being the operational or technical necessity to do so. This was usually done in the form of a grant or force account agreement. The grant is a lump sum payment to the owner to do whatever must be done to satisfy demands; force account is basically paying for personnel, materials, equipment and time in the form of an agreement and was usually used when the scope of the work was not clearly defined. He said in this case that was not true. The scope of work was not unforeseen and could be clearly defined by the owner, the operational demands could be clearly defined by the owner and therefore, there was no reason the railroad should not bid work that was financed with public funds from the Department of Transportation. That was the only way to guarantee that public policy is adhered to and people get the best price for the work. He noted the two safety concerns, one being operational safety. He said that was ongoing train schedules and operations by the Alaska Railroad. He said he had been involved in several projects involving the railroad and usually a retired railroad person was put on the payroll of the contractor and that had been done with success. Or, there was also nothing preventing the Alaska Railroad having a person safeguarding their safety operational requirements on the project. That individual could be paid through project funds. Mr. Wheatly already indicated all public work being done had to be bonded, so there would be a check and balance in the guarantee that the owner would get what he needed. He said his testimony laid out there were no present circumstances why the jobs should not be bid. Dennis Poshard, Legislative Liaison, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities was invited to join the committee. He said the department did not oppose or support the bill. He pointed out that their only concern with the bill was that their costs did not go up as a result of it. The railroad may want to address this at some point. Currently, he said they were happy with the process used for dealing with railroad crossings on road projects. A portion of the project that related to railroad crossings, such as a road going across railroad tracks, was separated and was not included in the bid. Then a force account contract would be negotiated. They had a fair idea of figuring out what the costs were and negotiating a reasonable contract. The railroad, up to date, had chosen to do with their own personnel and their own equipment. Whether they contract out or not is not a concern of the department. They thought the current process was good and felt it was better for the railroad to do the work and have their own inspectors on the projects. It saved the department from having to meet with them, include it in bid specs, work with the contractor and then try to go and sell the completed project to the railroad. This was mostly for safety reasons and the ease of trying to coordinate that part of the project. He did not want to speculate as to whether the safety would improve or go up or down if a contractor were to do the work or whether the costs would go up or down. The department only wanted to make sure that if the bill passed or did not pass, the committee would consider whether or not the department's costs would go up as a result. He further pointed out, with regards to the sponsor statement there were statements made that this would allow the Alaska Railroad to define how a portion of their tracks that interphase with the highway improvement project could be improved at taxpayer expense. He said, however, the railroad was not the only benefactor of taxpayer money on road projects. For example, they also work with utility companies to bury power lines. He said the railroad did not define how much their portion of the highway project should cost. The department's own project manager does the negotiating with the railroad and assures that the costs stay down. Other entities also benefit from DOT road projects. He said the department did not provide for any profits in the contracts. Senator Phillips asked if this process in Alaska was any different than the States of Washington or Montana that also deal with railroads? Mr. Poshard indicated he had no experience with these states. Senator Parnell asked if sufficient experience of the contractors was required in the request for proposal to complete this kind of work? Mr. Poshard said as he read the bill it would be up to the Alaska Railroad Corporation. But, the department would work with them. With regards to the work the railroad was currently doing they would be required to contract that out. Either the department would have to give them money, issue the contract separately or the department making it part of the overall road project contract. Senator Parnell asked what was the volume of dollars on an annual basis directly distributable to railroad crossing work? Mr. Poshard said he did not have exact figures, however, he said part of the reason they did not oppose nor support the bill was because it was a very miniscule amount of the total road budget that they have annually. Senator Parnell asked that Mr. Poshard explain "miniscule" amount and Mr. Poshard said that statewide it may amount to a couple of million dollars. On a per project basis it was a very small amount. Senator Parnell asked if an analysis had been done on whether or not there would be a cost savings or increase for putting the job out to bid? Mr. Poshard said they were currently doing that work and had requested such information from the railroad. Senator Parnell requested a list of this information. He further commented on the fiscal note, realizing that it was difficult to estimate costs. Co-chair Pearce said it was her understanding from the AGC that DOT&PF used to contract projects out, as either part of larger road projects or smaller ones. She wanted to know when the department started going directly to the railroad and have them do the work. Mr. Poshard said he was not certain when that changed. He could only speak to current procedures and did not know how long those had been in place. He advised the Co-chair he would check this out and get back to the committee. Senator Phillips asked when there was a major road project, involving power lines, cables, etc. did they contract to whoever owned the power line or did the contractor remove it as part of the road project? Mr. Poshard said he could not respond to this, but he would be able to get back to the committee with the answer. Co-chair Pearce referred to right-of-way and said occasionally utility companies find they get to move their utilities or up-grade them as part of a larger project and asked if a fee was paid to the State for the right-of-way? Mr. Poshard said he believed the utilities companies pay a fee for the right-of-way. Co-chair Pearce indicated they were treated somewhat different. Co-chair Pearce requested that materials asked by the committee to be supplied be done as timely as possible. Jim Blasingame, Alaska Railroad testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He indicated that Mr. Bill Hupprich, Associate General Counsel was also present. Mr. Blasingame said the railroad had no real objection to the proposed legislation as written. Unfortunately he said they did not have the benefit of the statements made by the other individuals, so they could only reply briefly. With regards to contracts or force accounts provided to the Alaska Railroad from DOT, he said: "we are a utility company just as other utility companies where DOT goes to Chugach Electric or ATU to perform those kinds of work". He further said that theirs had to do with crossings, in the sense that if someone else were to do it, the Alaska Railroad would have to have its inspectors certify that the work was being done properly. In addition, they would have to have flagging protection for the trains. He said those would be additional costs that would probably amount to about ten percent more than what they would already have. He said they did not make any profit off that work performed at those crossings. With reference to Mr. Poshard's testimony, when DOT provides a contract to the Alaska Railroad for crossing construction, they actually audit the railroad's books and determine the rate to insure they were not making a profit. It is all done at cost. He noted further for the committee, that their union labor agreement dictated that all railroad operating work be performed by railroad employees. That would be a problem if it were to be dictated to be contracted out. He believed there was a State law pertaining to utility companies that perform works on their right-of-way by the Department of Transportation. Bill Hupprich, Associate General Counsel for the Alaska Railroad, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He believed there was a State law that allowed utility owners the right to perform DOT&PF work using their own personnel, their own equipment and their own materials. He indicated that would be found at 17 AAC, section 15.31.0 to 461, and 17 AAC, section 15.471 to 551. Senator Parnell queried Mr. Hupprich as to the wording in the contract related to the earlier statement by Mr. Blasingame that all railroad operating work must be done by employees. Mr. Hupprich said it was in their collective bargaining agreements. Basically, they require any on-track work, including moving the track, picking up the rail, putting in new ties, ballast and installing crossing signals had to be done by railroad workers. Or at least they have to have the opportunity to bid on that work. Senator Parnell felt that was the key, not that it was required, but rather they had the opportunity to bid. He asked Mr. Hupprich to clarify what the regulations were in regards to utility owners. Mr. Hupprich, referring to his notes from last year, said that any utility owner, be it water line company, telephone company or electrical company, had the right to perform any DOT required relocation of their utility with their own labor forces and their own equipment. That was because they were the owners of the cable, water line, or in this case, the railroad track, which was being relocated. Senator Parnell asked whose regulations those were and Mr. Hupprich responded that he was not sure. He briefly noted Title 17. Senator Parnell asked, if under those regulations, the railroad was classed a utility and Mr. Hupprich responded that he believed so. Co-chair Pearce said this was yet another hat they wanted to wear. John Eng, President, Cornerstone Construction, testified before the committee via teleconference from Anchorage. He said they were general contractors incorporated in the State of Alaska to perform work of this type in addition to other general construction. They felt the bill addressed only projects financed with tax dollars. It did not deal with projects that the Alaska Railroad paid for with revenues generated within their own organization. He gave an example of the Federal Government having several miles of railroad on Ft. Wainwright. They have for several years contracted with the Alaska Railroad to maintain the line and do all construction on a force account basis. Two years ago they did advertise for bids and the company did submit a bid on the job. They were awarded the contract and the railroad was happy enough with their work to extend the contract by an additional year and have options to do so in future years. He said approximately eighty percent of the man hours paid out on the project were higher wage rates than those paid by the Alaska Railroad or the prevailing wage rate. Twenty percent was paid at the prevailing wage rate, which was the same as paid by the Alaska Railroad. Yet, the cost the owner was paying was approximately twenty-five to thirty-five percent cheaper than they were paying the Alaska Railroad to perform the same work. The last work last month as performed by the Alaska Railroad, compared to the subsequent months that they performed the work, the cost savings were approximately twenty-six percent. That was typical and in that range of twenty-five to thirty-five percent savings. They felt it was a win/win deal for everyone. Costs were reduced, public dollars were spent in a public format by advertising for bids and by defining what was required on contract documents the owner should get what they want. The safety issues as affected the public were the same as when a highway was built. The general contractors had certain safety requirements they had to adhere to when a road was under construction. The railroad had to adhere to the same requirements. He could also answer one other question, as a general contractor, and said they bid on road and street work all the time that involved other utilities, such as Chugach Electric or telephone utilities. In those contracts the scope of work was defined such as relocating underground conduit lines and so forth that utility lines pass through and what they did was use specialty personnel for that work and it was relocated as a bid item on the bid documents. In the particular case of Chugach Electric underground utilities, that work was included in public bid documents for street widening and was competitively bid. Senator Phillips asked who owned the right of way going from the railroad to the post in Fort Wainwright? Mr. Eng indicated it was owned by the Alaska Railroad. On the base it was owned by the Federal Government. Jim Blasingame, via teleconference from Anchorage, said he wanted to correct the comment by Mr. Eng regarding the right-of-way in Fort Wainwright. He said it belonged to the U.S. Army and not the Alaska Railroad. Co-chair Pearce said it was indicated by Mr. Eng that the right-of-way to the Fort belonged to the Alaska Railroad and on the Fort it belonged to the Federal Government. Senator Torgerson queried Mr. Blasingame with regards to direct grants from the Federal Government in the approximate amount of ten million dollars per year. He asked if that money went through DOT and were there any other appropriations that might be public funds funneled through DOT that did not have direct correlation to railroad crossings? He said this bill covered procuring supplies, professional services or construction and that was a fairly broad-based statement. The question was whether federal money or public money might come to the railroad through DOT. Mr. Blasingame responded that the other grants do not come through DOT. They came directly to the Alaska Railroad through the Federal Railroad Administration who actually administered the money. The only thing received from DOT had to do with the crossings where the highway and the railroad intersect. Co-chair Pearce said she would hold the bill in committee until fiscal notes were received from the Alaska Railroad and the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. She further asked Mr. Blasingame or Mr. Hupprich to provide the appropriate cites in their union contract requiring that any work be done by railroad employees. Senator Parnell indicated he was also interested in taking a look at the contract. Mr. Blasingame indicated he would comply with the request. Co-chair Pearce further stated that the bill would be brought before the committee sometime next week. With that she called SB 261. SENATE BILL NO. 261 "An Act relating to the Special Olympics World Winter Games to be held in Anchorage in the year 2001; establishing a reserve fund for the games; providing certain duties and authority for the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority regarding financing for those games; and providing for an effective date." Mary Gore, aide to Senator Mike Miller and Area Director for the Juneau Special Olympics, was invited to join the committee. The legislation before the committee was the result of hard work by a variety of different people to guarantee Anchorage would be awarded the Special Olympics World Winter Games in the year 2001. She recited a brief history for the committee. A couple of years ago the executive director of Special Olympics Alaska decided this would be a wonderful thing to do for Alaska and enlisted the aid of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens. Last summer the Anchorage organizing committee was told by Special Olympics International that in order to be awarded the bid the State would need to be the financial guarantor for the games. Special Olympics International would not go in the hole as a result of any location being awarded the bid. She explained that the result of several conversations between Special Olympics International and the Governor's Office was that the money did not need to be appropriated prior to the bid being awarded, however, the State would have to show that it was behind the organizing committee's efforts. Last fall letters were sent from the Governor's office, Speaker Gail Phillips and President Mike Miller stating they were behind the program and they would work toward resolution of the funding once session started. It was determined that the cash did not need to be appropriated and held in an account for the games. However, the State just needed to be on record if private resources could not raise the money. This legislation would morally obligate the State up to four million dollars if the organizing committee did not raise the funds. However, the likelihood of that was minimal. Total budget for the games was eight million dollars; four million in hard cash and four million in contributions. Thus far, she said about one million dollars in cash had been raised and the organizing committee had three years left to raise the remaining three million dollars. Checks and balances would be through AIDEA who would oversee the fundraising of the organizing committee and report to the Legislature every January 2 as to the status of the organizing committee's efforts. In the event the committee was falling behind a gentle push from the Legislature would put them back on track. In the year 2001 the Legislature would need to appropriate and then approve spending of those dollars during a legislative session if for some reason that was required. She said the organizing committee had already started raising money. Full page ads have been running in newspapers around the State and financial help as well as in kind help was going to be needed for hosting the games. Approximately two thousand athletes were expected with each two athletes requiring one chaperone. About seven thousand people would be visiting Anchorage, generating about seventeen million dollars during the ten day period the games will be held. Co-chair Pearce noted for the record that she is on the board of the Alaska Governing Board of the Special Olympics. Senator Phillips asked how many venues would be hosted. Ms. Gore indicated that there would be downhill, cross-country, snowboarding as an exhibition, snowshoeing and iceskating with a total of approximately eight venues. Senator Parnell voiced concern that it was being represented to the Legislature they were taking on the obligation as guarantor, however it was looking like they were a lendor or grant giver as well. He referred to page three, line eleven, section four, paragraph one. He felt the wording was very loose in comparison to what was being represented. Ms. Gore indicated that Keith Laufer from AIDEA was on teleconference and asked that he be allowed to explain since he worked through the legislation for the committee. Senator Torgerson asked Ms. Gore if any building were being built? Ms. Gore said no there were not. Senator Torgerson asked about checks and balances on the operational costs. Ms. Gore said there was an organizing committee overseeing everything to date. Most individuals from the private sector have been working through their own budget and the work being done has been free. She further advised that BP was paying for ads and not out of the eight million dollars budget. Senator Torgerson said his biggest concern was the opportunity to spend and not have any checks and balances. He asked if AIDEA would have a chance to reject the plan if the organization did not stay within the means of the financial plans submitted to them? Keith Laufer, Alaska Industrial and Export Authority testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said AIDEA supported the bill. It would create a new fund with AIDEA that would not be capitalized initially but could be capitalized in the event that come the year 2001 the games would require an additional amount of money they had not been able to raise. Further, the bill did not anticipate the State would finance any portion, but merely act as a guarantor. He said the reference to section 4, State financial assistance, had to be read in context with the rest of the bill. The assistance would be in the form of the Legislature appropriating up to four million dollars to the Special Olympics fund created in the bill, which would occur in the year 2001. He said there was no other vehicle for State financial assistance in the bill, other than references that the local organizing committee had to do everything to reduce any State participation, including that appropriation. He felt there was nothing to anticipate any financing other than the four million dollar back-up guarantee. With regards to the Authority's role, the bill required the local organization to submit a finance plan to the authority within six months of the bill being passed and then every six months thereafter. The finance plan would have to be approved by the Authority and they could go to the Legislature and suggest they appropriate money later. He explained this was a protection. Senator Parnell said he understood the purpose of the guarantee in the event there would be insufficient funds. He said presumably in 2001 they could come back to the Legislature and ask them to cover the amount. His concern was there was no specific time limit and felt they could come back next year and ask for the money if their fund- raising was not on track for 2001. He did not want the Legislature to get in the business of being a lender. Mr. Laufer in response to Senator Parnell referred to page three, lines seven through nine of the bill. He said AIDEA would have to determine there was insufficient monies from all other sources in an amount to not exceed four million dollars. He said after determining there was no other funds available then they would turn to the appropriation. Senator Donley agreed with Senator Parnell and said the witness was just talking around the issue. The language made it sound as if it was an invitation to come back and ask for direct State funding. He suggested it be rewritten to state that "if, after due diligence there has been a failure to raise the adequate amount of money and AIDEA certifies that due diligence has been done". Co-chair Pearce asked if the language was prescribed by the contract signed by the International Organization? Mr. Laufer indicated no. He said they tried to pull language out of AIDEA statutes that required finance reviews for what would otherwise be development projects. Those were combined with moral obligation language that would be used to support bond issuances, where the Legislature agreed to use moral obligation but did not wish to actually advance any funds. He felt that if the committee believed other more specific language was appropriate it could be accomplished. Senator Torgerson also voiced concerns on approving the operating costs of the operating committee. He wanted to know if there was anything other than the six months review by AIDEA. Mr. Laufer said their being required to make sure they could approve the plan every six months, which would include sticking with the plan, would insure the plan being accomplished with no deficit whatsoever. However, everyone knew that sometimes as one moved forward plans could be changed. Senator Torgerson asked if there would be any chance their agreement with the National Committee would change where it would affect dollar amounts? Mr. Laufer said his understanding was that the bill would provide the entire guarantee the International Committee was looking for. Nothing else would be required. Ms. Gore concurred. She said the total budget was eight million dollars. She further advised that in the first seven months that have passed they had already raised one million dollars of the four million dollars they were asking the Legislature to guarantee. They still had three years to raise the other three million dollars. She did not feel there would be a problem. Co-chair Pearce said she sensed some unease with section 4 and asked that Ms. Gore work with Mr. Laufer from AIDEA to come up with language that would make the committee feel more comfortable. She said this could be made available in the form of a proposed Finance CS. Senator Phillips referred to page two, lines six through nine regarding the number of venues. He said he was still interested in how many venues would be sponsored in comparison to the Arctic Winter Games or the Winter Olympics. Co-chair Pearce clarified that the Special Olympics would be the largest games to be held in the year 2001. She said the Arctic Winter Games were not going to be held until 2002. Senator Parnell in concurrence with Senator Donley felt the language on page three, lines thirteen and fourteen, essentially said "if the local organization desires State financial assistance they would prepare a finance plan and submit that plan to the Authority for approval no later than ninety days after the effective date of this Act." He said it sounded like they would submit the finance plan to AIDEA within ninety days that indicated they were already desiring State assistance. Ms. Gore said that referred to the plan they were required to submit every six months so that AIDEA can oversee what was being done. Senator Parnell reiterated that it read "State financial assistance". He felt everyone agreed they wanted to be a guarantor. Ms. Gore said it was for State financial assistance in the year 2001 if they did not meet their requirements. She said perhaps the wording could be changed. Mr. Laufer explained the requirement for the financial plan within ninety days and every six months thereafter. If the organization failed to comply they would no longer be eligible for financial assistance. Senator Phillips asked if it was required in other jurisdictions to have financial moral obligations, how was it done, and where. Ms. Gore indicated that it was required in other jurisdictions and believed it was the State of South Carolina who did the same backing, even though they had more flexibility through a division that was very similar to AIDEA. They were able to do an actual bond for the Olympics. Toronto, two years ago, was also under the same requirement. Senator Torgerson asked if the fund would be able to use the amount generated off the investment as part of the fund? Mr. Laufer said they had not provided for that because they had not anticipated any funds ever being appropriated into the reserve fund until the year 2001. They would only expect to ask for that appropriation if the money were to be expended in short order. Senator Torgerson said the committee just heard there was one million dollars already collected. Was that not in the fund? Mr. Laufer said the fund would only be used for the State's contribution when and if it was required. Meanwhile, the local organizing committee had their own non-profit corporation holding the funds they had raised. Senator Donley asked if this appeared in a temporary section of the statutes? Mr. Laufer said that was his understanding. Senator Parnell asked how long an act stayed in temporary statutes and was a sunset needed? Mr. Laufer said his understanding was that once they were passed the time the fund no longer has any input it did not matter if it was in the temporary statutes. However, they should confer with the Attorney General's office. Co-chair Pearce said she would hold SB 261 in committee until next Tuesday, 24 March along with SB 25. (The committee took a short at ease at 9:20 a.m. and reconvened at 9:30 a.m.) Co-chair Pearce said the remainder of the meeting was a continuation of the results based budgeting work session for Department of Natural Resources, Forestry Program. She asked Senator Parnell to continue the meeting as chair. SENATE BILL NO. 229 "An Act making appropriations for the operating and loan program expenses of state government, for certain programs, and to capitalize funds; making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for an effective date." RESULTS BASED GOVERNMENT WORKSESSION Focusing on: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FORESTRY PROGRAMS (Continued from Monday) The meeting was recorded and handwritten log notes were taken. A copy of the tape and log notes for this portion of the meeting may be obtained by contacting either the office of the Senate Finance Committee Secretary (Phone: (907)465- 2618) or the Reference Library, Legislative Affairs Agency, Goldstein Building, Room 400, Juneau, Alaska 99801 (Phone: (907)465-3808. ADJOURNMENT Co-chair Pearce recessed the meeting until 4:30 p.m. this afternoon. SFC-98 -1- 2/17/98
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|