Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
04/14/2009 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB225 | |
| HB205 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 225 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 14, 2009
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 225
"An Act relating to the State Procurement Code; relating to the
procurement of supplies, services, professional services,
construction services, state fisheries products, state
agricultural products, state timber, and state lumber; relating
to procurement preferences; relating to procurement by the
office of the ombudsman, the Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority, the Alaska Energy Authority, and other state
agencies and public corporations; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 225(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 205
"An Act relating to the permanent fund dividend of an otherwise
qualified individual who dies during the qualifying year; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 205(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 225
SHORT TITLE: STATE PROCUREMENT CODE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FAIRCLOUGH
04/10/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/10/09 (H) STA, FIN
04/14/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 205
SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND FOR DECEASED
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRAWFORD
03/25/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/09 (H) STA, FIN
04/14/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
ANNA FAIRCLOUGH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 225 as prime sponsor.
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff
Representative Anna Fairclough
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 225, answered
questions on behalf of Representative Fairclough, prime sponsor.
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer
Division of General Services
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a sectional analysis to HB 225.
PAUL GRASSI, Staff
Representative Harry Crawford
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 205 on behalf of
Representative Crawford, prime sponsor.
CHRIS POAG, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Commercial & Fair Business Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 205, answered
questions.
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff
Representative Kevin Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question on behalf of
Representative Meyer during the hearing on HB 205.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:08 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Wilson,
Petersen, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Johnson and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 225-STATE PROCUREMENT CODE
8:04:59 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 225, "An Act relating to the State Procurement Code;
relating to the procurement of supplies, services, professional
services, construction services, state fisheries products, state
agricultural products, state timber, and state lumber; relating
to procurement preferences; relating to procurement by the
office of the ombudsman, the Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority, the Alaska Energy Authority, and other state
agencies and public corporations; and providing for an effective
date."
8:05:12 AM
ANNA FAIRCLOUGH, Alaska State Legislature, stated that the
proposed legislation would change procurement procedures for the
State of Alaska. She related that last summer she began working
to make changes regarding veterans' preference [bidding], which
is when she found there were inconsistencies in the state's
procurement code. She discovered from the state's chief
procurement officer that many challenges were faced by state
employees every time a bid came forward that dealt with a
preference. For example, sometimes bids had to be re-bid.
Furthermore, the formulas were calculated differently on each
bid, which required additional training.
8:06:42 AM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Anna Fairclough, Alaska
State Legislature, added that the bill sponsor had been
approached by the state's chief procurement officer who had been
keeping track of inconsistencies within the procurement code for
a number of years. She said the sponsor believes that [HB 225]
is something that needs to happen.
8:07:56 AM
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer, Division of General
Services, Department of Administration, presented the sectional
analysis for HB 225. He stated that many of the proposed
changes would reorganize and streamline preferences. He said
Section 1 would update a citation because of "the renumbering of
a preference." Section 2 would amend the local agricultural
preference to grant bid preference based on the qualifying bid
price, rather than lowest price. In response to Representative
Seaton, he clarified that the bill would "make the preference
apply directly to the qualifying bid." He offered further
details. In response to Representative Gruenberg, he confirmed
that the term "applied to" means "deducted from."
8:11:12 AM
MR. JONES said Section 3 would make the same change, but for the
local fisheries preference. Section 4 would amend the local
agricultural and fisheries product preference to disallow a
bidder from being granted both that preference and the Alaska
product preference. He noted that there is some overlap, so the
change would allow one or the other, but not both. Section 5
would update a citation regarding renumbering.
8:12:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned to Section 4 and asked if,
under current law, the two preferences can be "stacked."
MR. JONES answered yes. He explained the policy reason for that
change is that the preferences achieve "the same thing" - they
are for the same product. He said he does not think when the
legislature originally passed the preference it was intended to
overlap or be duplicative. In response to a follow-up question
from Representative Gruenberg, he said the department is happy
to be working with the bill sponsor. The discussion began
around procurement preferences and expanded to other changes
that the department has been desiring over the past years.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wants the record to show that
the bill has been carefully prepared and has the backing of the
administration.
MR. JONES responded, "It's been many years in the making."
8:13:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, regarding Section 4, said the committee
recently dealt with a veterans' [bidder] preference with a
$5,000, but he said he does not remember where that was
scheduled. He asked, "Is that in this same non-stackable
group?" He recollected that that preference could be applied in
addition to the Alaska bidders' preference.
MR. JONES replied, "The language in this bill is identical to HB
24, which passed out of this committee, and it is one of the
preferences that can be combined with other preferences."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that if [HB
225] moves, it will subsume [HB 24].
CHAIR LYNN and MR. JONES confirmed that is correct.
8:15:30 AM
MR. JONES continued with the sectional analysis. He stated that
Section 6 would add the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority (AIDEA) and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to an
existing list of agencies that are exempt from the procurement
code, and it would update citation to reflect the renumbering of
preferences. Both AIDEA and AEA would be required to adopt
regulations that comport with competitive bidding principles and
provide reasonable and equitable access and the chance for all
to compete for business. He said both the Department of
Administration and those agencies believe that due to their
unique nature, they do not meet the typical state agency profile
and the procurement code is cumbersome and does not make sense
much of the time, given the nature of their business.
8:16:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Jones to confirm that "this
doesn't have anything to do with the ... competitive grants that
are being given under the AEA for renewable energy projects
around the state."
MR. JONES responded that is correct.
8:16:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Jones to confirm that Section
5 would eliminate 36.30.170(b), because the bill would repeal
and reenact 36.30.170 in Section 13, but without a subsection
(b).
Mr. JONES answered that is correct, and said he would explain
why it was eliminated when he gets to Section 13.
8:17:00 AM
MR. JONES turned to Sections 7, 8, and 9, which he said are all
technical changes that would update citations after the
combining and renumbering of preferences. Section 10, he noted,
would amend the small procurement threshold limit specific to
leases from 3,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet. Section 11
would clarify the Alaska business license requirements for
competitive sealed bids, as well as qualifications for the
Alaska bidder preference. It is a change that has been
recommended by the Division of Legislative Audit, and is
intended to address a problem with the current process wherein -
especially with large, complex, high-dollar procurements -
competitors are routinely tossed out for having failed to get an
Alaska bidder license prior to the bid opening or Request for
Proposal (RFP) closing date. These bidders have otherwise
viable proposals. Section 11 would not change the preference
requirements; it would simply allow the bidder time to get the
license in order to qualify for an award. In response to
Representative Wilson, he clarified that the intent is that
bidders will have to have a license in order to submit an offer
and receive a preference; without the license, the preference
will not be given, but the entity doing the submitting will
still be evaluated, as long as that entity can get a license
prior to award.
8:21:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned why a bidder without a
license should be prevented from getting the preference, as long
as that bidder gets the license prior to the award of the bid.
MR. JONES explained that part of the requirement for the Alaska
bidder preference and other preferences is that a bidder must
have a license and have been in the state six months prior to
the bid opening.
8:21:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that the
contract award does not happen at bid opening, but later, and
only if the bidder is licensed to do bidding in Alaska.
MR. JONES confirmed that is correct. He said there is an
evaluation process, and sometimes there is a discussion, a
negotiation, and a "best and final offer," all of which can take
several weeks.
8:22:43 AM
MR. JONES, in response to Representative Wilson, said most
businesses already have a business license, because that is a
requirement. He continued as follows:
So, most of these are ... the large, complex, systems
replacements and ... multi-million dollar
procurements, when a lot of the time we're talking
about all outside vendors competing against one
another. ... The law wouldn't discriminate, but logic
would dictate that people doing business in the state
already have a business license.
MR. JONES, in response to Representative Wilson, said in Alaska,
as well as Outside, the license fee is the same: $200 for two
years.
8:23:51 AM
MR. JONES, in response to Representative Petersen, confirmed
that the department accepts those bidders [for preferences] that
have applied and paid for a license, but have not yet received
it.
8:24:30 AM
MR. JONES continued with the sectional analysis. He stated that
Section 12 would eliminate the reference to a procurement
officer's use of vendor lists, "reflecting the repeal of that
statute in the repealer section." Currently law requires a
vendor list to be maintained, but that list has become useless
since businesses now make notices online. Section 13, he
reiterated, would update a citation to reflect renumbering. It
relates to the Alaska bidder preference. In response to a
question from Representative Gruenberg regarding Section 13, he
said the Alaska bidder preference language has been moved [to
Section 13] so that "all of the preferences in AS 36.30 are in
the same place and have consistent language.
CHAIR LYNN recollected what a complicated process procurements
were when he served in the military.
8:26:50 AM
MR. JONES said Section 14 would add new language allowing multi-
step, revised sealed bidding. He explained that this is a new
technique that a few states and the private sector are using,
and the department thinks it could help save Alaska money. He
stated, "It doesn't stop when the bid's received; there's a
refinement and process we go through to get a better and better
success of rounds of bids in this case." He said the process is
not clearly called out in statute; therefore, regulations would
need to be established. In response to Representative Wilson,
he offered an example of how the new technique might be used.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if it would be possible to divide
bids so that different vendors were doing different parts of the
project.
MR. JONES responded that that would be difficult because of "the
principle of technical transference." He explained, "We're not
supposed to be taking the best of each proposal and trying to
combine them into one bid." He said the language of the bid
would dictate "how we move forward in the future." He stated,
"What we're talking about here really is giving everyone a
chance in successive rounds to give us a better price." He
added that there is another section that addresses competitive
sealed proposals, which is "more typical for the use of this
tool."
8:31:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said it seems like a person would offer
less in the first proposal, knowing there could be a series of
steps to "sweeten up one part of it." A bid, on the other hand,
must be the best possible offer up front.
MR. JONES said Alaska plans to model the process after Oregon's
successful model. He said this practice is more common in the
private sector. He said, "There's competition, and you don't
know that you'd be selected for that second round, unless you
put your best foot forward to begin with." Furthermore, he
noted this would be an optional process. After looking at the
bids, the division might determine that there is no way anyone
could do better; therefore, there would never be a guarantee of
a successive round.
8:33:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that in the case of a
procurement, if the party involved does not put forward the best
initially, thinking that there is a possibility for a second
round, but the division decides there is not going to be a
second round, there may be grounds for a lawsuit.
MR. JONES responded that he does not think that argument would
be successful. He said, "The one experience that we do have in
this right now is in the proposal arena, not the bidding arena."
He stated that proposals can be evaluated and negotiated.
Currently, he said, the division has the ability to bring
forward a select few for discussion and submittal of a best and
final offer, which he said is "basically what we would be doing
here." He indicated that the division has not been challenged
by someone wanting to submit a best and final offer; it is known
that it is in the state's discretion whether or not to accept
those.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked Mr. Jones if the division has ever
experienced a situation in which it receives six proposals and
says "we're done," and never invites "anyone to have a
conversation."
MR. JONES answered that that is probably the most common result
currently. He said he is trying to change that, but "that's
where we're at now." He stated, "This tool is much more common,
and people are more comfortable with it in the proposal arena
than in the bidding arena."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded, "It would seem like we're
almost creating a hybrid that ... from the other side of it
makes me a little uncomfortable. I wouldn't know how to bid
it."
8:36:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if this multi-step technique would
permit reevaluation or rebidding, and in what type of situations
it would be used.
MR. JONES answered that there are two parts to the concept of
successive rounds of refinement. One is in Section 18, which
addresses proposals. He specified that in the bid process, the
low bidder wins, while in proposals, there is an evaluation and
selection of the best provider, considering price and
"everything else," and there is more negotiation involved. He
said, "We would see that, and this could apply, if both
provisions in the bill pass, to virtually any kind of formal
procurement, whether it be a bid or proposal. And the key here
is: the instance that you do this is when the procurement
officer believes that there's money on the table, [and] that
they can go another round and get a better price or better
product or service."
8:38:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that this would be a significant
change with a lot of merit. He mentioned a [bill] by Senator
McGuire which included a provision for future evaluation.
MR. JONES clarified that Representative Gruenberg was talking
about a bill by Senator McGuire which established a procurement
pilot, whereby an agency's procurement would be outsourced to a
private business. He offered further details
8:40:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVES WILSON and JOHNSON briefly discussed the issues
related to the aforementioned bill by Senator McGuire.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained he had not intended for the
committee to discuss the merits or demerits of that program, but
had merely been suggesting that the committee consider imposing
a sunset on [HB 225].
8:43:23 AM
MR. JONES returned to the sectional analysis. He noted that
Section 16 would clarify construction contractor registration
requirements. Section 17 would clarify the Alaska business
license requirements for competitive sealed proposals and
qualifications for the Alaska bidder preference, which would be
consistent with Section 11. Section 18 would add a new section
to the state's procurement code, which would allow for multi-
step negotiations for competitive sealed proposals. Mr. Jones
noted that Section 18 is the companion section to Section 14.
Section 14 deals with low-bid situations, while Section 18 deals
with RFPs where more evaluation takes place. Section 19 would
update a citation to reflect the renumbering of a preference.
MR. JONES said Section 20 would direct procurement officers to
consider only the preferences listed in statute when applying
preference under the competitive sealed proposal process. It
would instruct procurement officers to apply the preferences
only to the price portion of a proposal. Mr. Jones explained
that preferences are complicated enough, but are more difficult
when applied to a proposal, because proposals do not relate
solely to price, but also relate to "a number of things" and are
done on a point system. He noted that this preference would
effectively eliminate the Alaska "offerors'" preference, which
is the only preference that is only in regulation - it is not
contained in statute. It is also the only preference that
applies to RFPs, and it is a points-based preference. Mr. Jones
explained the reason that the division is trying to do this is
because it believes that in many instances, the Alaska offerors'
preference makes the state's procurements noncompetitive. He
continued:
When you get a 10 point overall preference - 10 points
out of 100 - you combine that with [an] Alaska bidder
preference [and] maybe a product preference if you're
disabled or a veteran [and] these things add up. ...
In many instances, especially in these large,
complicated procurements that we sometimes do, 10
points is more than the difference than anyone in the
industry, and I think causes people not to be
interested in submitting a proposal, because they see
that and they know their competitor, for example, may
have opened up a business six months prior, just to
achieve this very large, valuable preference. They
see that, they say, "Well, there's no way we can win,
there's not that much difference between us; we can't
compete with that." And that's another reason why we
think this encourages people to ... open up a tiny
sliver of an office and have an employee there with a
shingle out ... in hopes of getting ten points off of
a ... $30-$40 million project six months later. We've
seen that happen.
8:47:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said it concerns him when he hears that
preference will be applied only to a price portion of a
proposal. He questioned if the issue of quality is considered
in this determination.
MR. JONES responded that in an RFP there is "a price section"
with a formula in which the lowest price gets the highest number
of points; however, there are also many evaluation criteria in
an RFP in addition to price. He clarified, "Well all we're
saying here is that when you apply the preference, the
preference is only applied to the price; it has nothing to do
with the evaluation criteria for anything else in that
proposal."
8:48:44 AM
MR. JONES continued with the sectional analysis. He said
Section 21 would add language that would allow an agency to
accept electronic bids and proposals, thus modernizing the
state's code and getting it out of the business of having to
collect paper signatures, which will improve efficiency.
Section 22 would revise the approval process for innovative
procurements. He said alternate procurement types are very
seldom used, so this would not be a substantive change. Section
23 would revise statute related to emergency procurements. It
would clarify that the commissioner of administration shall
adopt regulations defining emergency conditions, as well as
outlining who is responsible for written determinations. The
section would clarify that the commissioner of Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) would approve any
emergency having to do with construction, while the chief
procurement officer would approve any emergency related to non-
construction.
MR. JONES said Section 24 would increase the small procurement
threshold limit from $50,000 to $100,000, the construction limit
from $100,000 to $200,000, and the lease of office space limit
from 3,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet. In response to
Representative Johnson, he offered his understanding that this
has been changed once since the code was enacted in 1988. He
said two reasons for the change are inflation and the desire to
spend more time on "higher-dollar procurements."
8:51:26 AM
MR. JONES said Section 25 would add a new section that would
consolidate the Alaska bidder and related preferences formerly
in [AS 36.30.170(b)], simplify the qualification for the
disability and employment program preferences, eliminate the
seldom used "employers of people with disabilities preference,"
and establish the Alaska [veteran] preference. Mr. Jones
explained that currently the disabled preference has only two
qualifying firms, both of which are in the business of offering
the state lease space in buildings. He stated, "We believe that
when the legislature passed these preferences, it probably
didn't think that they would be applied to the lease of office
space. ... We strongly believe that preferences ought not to
be applied to lease space." He noted that this section would
also make changes to how the disability and employment program
preferences are evaluated in Vocational Rehabilitation. It
would allow multiple, third-party programs to certify people.
He offered an example. He said the people at Vocational
Rehabilitation are not doctors and have a higher level of
comfort with this third-party certification.
8:54:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he wanted to know if there is
"anything in here that relates to permanent disability." After
comments from Mr. Jones and an inaudible aside from
Representative Seaton, he noted that the word "permanent" is
used in the language.
[CHAIR LYNN handed the gavel over to Vice Chair Seaton.]
8:55:22 AM
MR. JONES noted that Section 26 would modify the use of a local
forest products statute to grant a 7 percent cost preference to
the qualifying bid rather than to the low bid. Section 27 would
clarify which preferences are cumulative and which may not be
combined. For example, a bidder cannot claim both an employment
program preference and disabled bidder preference, because those
two overlap and are essentially for "the same type of
condition." Section 28, he said, would add a new section which
would allow the chief procurement officer to renegotiate a
contract without additional competitive process, subject to
several conditions ensuring that the renegotiated contract is at
least as favorable to the state as the original contract. The
extension would capped at five years. Mr. Jones said this
section may be controversial. He stated, "We have some good
experience with this in leasing. Right now our leasing statute,
[AS] 36.30.083, allows us to negotiate an extension to a lease
if certain conditions are met." He offered further details. He
said, "This would apply that same kind of a principle to any
other type of contract, not just leases, so we would have to do
some due diligence, figure out what market rate is, [and] if we
feel like we can get a good deal, we could extend the contract
rather than putting it out to bid again."
8:57:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, regarding leases in particular, asked if
a Request for Information (RFI) would be done before extending
five years.
MR. JONES answered that for leases the division currently uses
one of two tools: an appraisal or a broker's assessment of
value (AOV). He continued:
So, we get an ... independent, third-party snapshot of
what we think the market is for that space, and then
we have to come in 10 percent under that in order to
get the extension under the leasing law. We would
propose maybe not a brokerage-type tool here, but we
would have to build in something that would guarantee
that this is ... a better price than the market out
there and what percent under we would need to write
[regulations] around that.
MR. JONES, in response to Vice Chair Seaton, stated:
To get some comfort with that, we'd need to write some
fairly stringent regulations around ... what will help
you determine if it's in the state's best interest....
Market rate isn't going to do it, because you could
get that -- ... there has to be a compelling reason
why you would not want to go and issue a new
procurement and let the market determine... So, you'd
have to overcome that inclination, I guess, in the
code compelling you to go and get competition.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recommended keeping "a close eye on that
[regulation]." He indicated that one individual broker may not
know about someone who is willing to release property for little
money.
9:00:09 AM
MR. JONES, in response to Representative Wilson, clarified that
typically when the division does a lease extension, it does so
after all the optional renewals have been exhausted. At that
point, the option would be either to "go through this process
and extend it through the unique allowance in statute," or "put
it out to bid."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON opined that "we need to watch that very
carefully."
MR. JONES concurred. He reiterated that currently there is an
"independent third look" on the leases. He said, "This would be
for other contracts, and I agree this is somewhat controversial
and we're going to have to be very careful to depart from the
normal, you know, put it out to bid again."
9:02:19 AM
MR. JONES, in response to Vice Chair Seaton, said there is no
provision proposed in HB 225 for the division to report back to
the legislature regarding new policy initiative; however, he
said the division does currently report regarding how much has
been saved as a result of the existing statute for leases. He
indicated that having to report on the new policy would not be
particularly onerous, since the division already does a lot of
reporting currently. He added:
This is a modern tool that's developed over the last
several years. This, along with several of the others
that ... give the state procurement folks the same
tools and techniques that ... have been successful in
the private sector. The number one spin management or
strategic sourcing cost-savings tool out there right
now is ... [renegotiating] existing contracts, and
this falls in line with that.
VICE CHAIR SEATON said he thinks it would be advisable that
reports be made to the legislature from the division to ensure
checks and balances.
9:04:20 AM
MS. KOENEMAN said she believes the bill sponsor would be open to
having an amendment offered to that effect.
MR. JONES continued to Section 29, which he said would clarify a
timeframe for the filing of a protest. Section 30 would clarify
existing statute which would allow the division to consider late
protests "if they show good cause." The section would clarify
the meaning of "good cause". Section 31 is new section that
would require a protest filing to be accompanied by a $250
filing fee. He said this is a modest fee compared to the fee
that some other states require.
MR. JONES, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said
protests must be filed within 10 days.
9:06:28 AM
MS. KOENEMAN read statute related to that 10-day filing limit.
MR. JONES clarified that a protest based on the specification
must be filed 10 days before the due date, while a protest of
the award must be filed within 10 days after the award decision
has been noted. In response to Representative Gruenberg, he
said he does not have the discretion to grant extensions, and he
offered his belief that that "hard deadline" has not proved
problematic. In response to Representative Petersen, he said
the 10 days means calendar days, not business days. In response
to Representative Gruenberg, he said if the tenth day falls on a
weekend or holiday, an extension is made to the end of "the
first next business day." In response to a follow-up, said
currently the filing is done either by signed letter or
facsimile; however, he said he supposes that with the bill's
proposed allowance of electronic signatures, filing
electronically may be a possibility.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like that clarified, and
he asked if that would require an amendment to the bill or if
the division could "do that under the bill as written."
MR. JONES responded that the bill contains a definition of
"electronic signature" and "that would take care of that."
9:09:04 AM
MR. JONES returned to the sectional analysis. He said Section
32 would add a new section to temporarily delay award of a
contract in order to address a protest, rather than issue a stay
of award. He explained that to "stay an award" is formal and
"puts the procurement on ice," because reactivation cannot take
place until all appeals are addressed. Section 32 is merely a
request for an interim measure wherein the division can "put a
hold on the thing in order to get enough time to address the
protest," while still having the ability to decide to proceed
with the process. In response to Vice Chair Seaton, he said
this would not affect the 10-day period during which a protest
can be filed. In response to Representative Wilson, he
clarified that a stay of award prevents an award being made and
buys time to examine the process and consider the protest. If
the award is not stayed, after the 10-day protest period is
over, the award can be delayed and then made, a contract can be
signed, and work can begin, all the while the protester is
appealing the decision. In response to a follow-up question, he
offered further details.
9:14:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it is helpful to know the
interplay of the applicable statutes. He directed attention to
page 14, lines 16-17, which read as follows:
(c) A temporary delay of a contract award under this
section does not constitute a stay of award under AS
36.30.575.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that AS 36.30.375 read as
follows:
Sec. 36.30.575. Stay of award.
If a protest is filed the award may be made unless the
procurement officer of the contracting agency
determines in writing that a
(1) reasonable probability exists that the
protest will be sustained; or
(2) stay of the award is not contrary to the best
interests of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks Mr. Jones is referring
to [AS 36.30.600], which read as follows:
Sec. 36.30.600. Stay of award during protest appeal.
If a protest appeal is filed before a contract is
awarded and the award was stayed under AS 36.30.575,
the filing of the appeal automatically continues the
stay until the commissioner of administration or the
commissioner of transportation and public facilities,
as appropriate, makes a written determination that the
award of the contract without further delay is
necessary to protect substantial interests of the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated, "I think the purpose of this is
to allow a lower officer a briefer time to temporarily delay,
and you have to understand how Section 600 works."
MR. JONES confirmed that Representative Gruenberg is correct.
9:16:40 AM
MR. JONES proceeded with the sectional analysis. Section 33, he
said, would eliminate the reference to removal of debarred or
suspended persons from vendor lists, which would reflect the
repeal of a law establishing the vendor lists. Section 34 would
add language to the cooperative purchasing section, which would
allow the state to more effectively use contracts established by
other public procurement units.
VICE CHAIR SEATON asked if this section relates to the fuel
contract with the ferry system.
MR. JONES answered no. He clarified that the intergovernmental
relation section of statute addresses the state's participation
with other governmental entities in cooperation to establish
joint contracts. He said the situation Vice Chair Seaton
referenced was a state contract which is used in varying degrees
by other state agencies; it does not stem from the authority
granted in the intergovernmental relation section. In response
to a follow-up question, he clarified that "public procurement
unit" - as seen on page 15, line 3 - means a city or another
state, not the state internally.
VICE CHAIR SEATON asked if there are any clarifications that
need to be made in procurement statute so "it's much easier and
quicker for something like the fuel contract ... with the ferry
system so that the other agencies of the state could participate
in that contract."
MR. JONES answered no. He said the division is already
authorized to do statewide contracts, which are, in most cases,
available to all state agencies.
9:19:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding Section 33, asked where in
statute the criterion for debarring or suspending someone is set
out.
MR. JONES responded that that language is found in AS 36.30.635.
He said [Section 33] would not impact the debarment or
suspension process.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG described [HB 225] as an omnibus bill
designed to help the Division of General Services. He directed
attention to the language in AS 36.30.635 subsections (a) and
(b), which read as follows:
Sec. 36.30.635. Authority to debar or suspend.
(a) After consultation with the using agency and
the attorney general and after a hearing conducted
according to AS 36.30.670 and, to the extent they do
not conflict with regulations adopted under AS
44.64.060, regulations adopted by the commissioner of
administration, the commissioner of administration or
the commissioner of transportation and public
facilities may debar a person for cause from
consideration for award of contracts. Notice of a
debarment hearing shall be provided in writing at
least seven days before the hearing. The debarment may
not be for a period of more than three years.
(b) The commissioner of administration or the
commissioner of transportation and public facilities,
after consultation with the using agency and the
attorney general, may suspend a person from
consideration for award of contracts if there is
probable cause for debarment and compelling reasons
require suspension to protect state interests. The
suspension may not be for a period exceeding three
months.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG highlighted the timing - no more than
three years for debarment and no more than three months for
suspension - and urged Mr. Jones to consider whether the
division needs more discretion.
9:21:36 AM
MR. JONES responded that a suspension is an interim measure
contemplated to take somebody "out of the picture" while the
division goes through the debarment process. He said that
process takes attorney time and the division does not enter into
it lightly. He related that he has been chief procurement
officer since 1993, and in that time there have been only two or
three debarments; therefore, he said he is not sure "it is
really worth examining much, just because it's so seldom used."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that he wants to avoid an ex
post facto situation where "you can't do it retroactively."
MR. JONES reiterated that this issue has not been identified as
a problem.
9:23:35 AM
MR. JONES moved on to Section 35, which he said would add a new
section explicitly authorizing the state to participate in
cooperative procurements with other governments, and would wave
procurement preferences that would otherwise prevent the
division from leading a procurement. He explained that if the
division is leading a cooperative procurement that involves
other states, those other states will not want to participate if
the Alaska bidder preference is applied. Without Section 35,
the division is bound to use the Alaska bidder preference.
MR. JONES said Section 36 would add new exemptions for the
following: contracts for lease space located outside of the
state; contracts for investigative services entered into by the
department for the Alaska personnel board, the Office of Public
Advocacy, and the Alaska Public Offices Commission; for
commodities used in the prisoner employment program; and for
professional training. Section 37 would move the definition for
"Alaska bidder" from [36.30.170(b)] into the definition section,
and would add new definitions for "electronic signature", "in
writing", "signature", and "written". He said this would help
the division implement the changes proposed in previous
sections.
MR. JONES said Sections 38 and 39 update citations to reflect
renumbering of preferences. Section 40 would add language to
clarify that the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to
meetings with "offerors" under the multi-step negotiation
process [contained in Section 18] or to renegotiation of
contracts [as contained in Section 29]. Section 41 proposes a
technical change regarding the application of the Administrative
Procedure Act to AIDEA, and it would comport with the change
made in Section 6.
9:26:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, regarding the new definitions proposed in
Section 37, questioned where "electronic [signatures]" are
mentioned.
MS. KOENEMAN responded that "electronic signature" is referenced
[on page 16, line 10, paragraph 27], within the definition of
"signature". She noted that the bill drafter had said there is
no need to give "electronic signature" its own [paragraph].
9:27:38 AM
MR. JONES returned to the sectional analysis. He said Section
42 would repeal statutes establishing the aforementioned vendor
list, Section 43 would clarify the application of "the
procurement act" to pending solicitations during the transition
period, Section 44 would change a title [of AS 36.30.360] from
"Determination of responsibility" to "Determination of
nonresponsibility", and Section 45 would provide an immediate
effective date.
9:28:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that not having an immediate
effective date might provide more time for the division to give
the public notice about any changes to the law via HB 225.
MR. JONES said the time it will take for the bill process and
public hearings will be sufficient. He said he is anxious to
see some of the provisions adopted for the sake of proficiency.
9:29:27 AM
VICE CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Jones to confirm that all the
provisions that would require the division to write new
regulations are optional; therefore, those sections would not be
employed until the division has the regulations written and
promulgated.
MR. JONES responded that is correct.
9:30:08 AM
VICE CHAIR SEATON directed attention to language in Section 17,
on page 7, lines 8-15, which states that the "offeror" shall
have a business license in order to qualify for the Alaska
bidder preference. He asked if that was intentional or if the
other sections needed to be cited as well.
MR. JONES responded that some of the preferences "act on the
business and whether the business qualifies," while other
preferences are actually "applied to the product."
9:31:35 AM
VICE CHAIR SEATON said, "I think I saw three: one was an
agricultural product, one was a fisheries' product, and one was
the forestry product ...."
MR. JONES responded:
There's a fourth category; there's the Alaska product
preferences, as well. There are three categories of
Alaska products in addition to those three.
9:31:55 AM
MR. JONES, in response to Vice Chair Seaton, said fuel would
qualify under the Alaska product preference. He stated that
there are three levels of Alaska products: 3, 5, and 7 percent
preferences depending on the percentage of the product that is
manufactured in the state. He offered further details. He
noted that fuel refined in Alaska qualifies for the Alaska
product preference now.
VICE CHAIR SEATON asked if fuel delivered to the Bush at $4-$5 a
gallon at a 7 preference would amount to a bidder preference of
49-50 cents a gallon.
MR. JONES responded that the only limitation on a preference is
contained "in this section" and in HB 24, which is in regard to
the Alaska veteran preference. He said, "So, no other
preferences have limitations placed on them, so it could be any
number."
VICE CHAIR SEATON said he is trying to understand the impact on
rural communities and fuel prices.
MR. JONES replied that generally speaking, these preference do
not apply to local government - they only apply when the state
is buying fuel. He said, "Unless the state's out there buying
fuel, there wouldn't be these preferences, but when the state
is, they do apply."
VICE CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Jones if "giving that large of a
preference on ... liquid energy to instate production" is
"increasing price" in rural Alaska.
9:34:46 AM
MR. JONES answered that these preferences are not without cost.
He said he thinks the legislature and the governor who signed
those preferences into law made a policy call that the state is
willing to pay more to foster in-state business. He said he
would not be opposed to a limitation on how great a preference
can be, but reiterated that that is the purview of the
legislature.
VICE CHAIR SEATON remarked that the problem had not been
indentified until recent hikes in fuel prices.
MR. JONES reiterated that even so, it only applies to state
procurements, where the state is bound to apply these
preferences where local governments are not so bound.
VICE CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony.
9:36:18 AM
VICE CHAIR SEATON directed attention to Section 14 on page 6,
regarding the multi-step revised sealed bid, and Section 28 on
pages 12 and 13, regarding renegotiation and getting a report
back on the effectiveness and effect of policies. He asked Mr.
Jones what he, as a procurement officer, thinks would be a
reasonable time frame in which to report back to the
legislature.
MR. JONES estimated it would take a couple of years to obtain
"some real historical information." He said the division is
required by law to publish a procurement report to the
legislature every two years, and he proposed that that timing
would work well for the proposed reporting requirements.
9:38:20 AM
MS. KOENEMAN, in response to Vice Chair Seaton, said the bill
sponsor does not expect the bill to pass through both bodies by
the end of this year's session, but would like to see it pass
through one body this year.
VICE CHAIR SEATON suggested that an update regarding the two
aforementioned sections could realistically be required two
years after the effective date of the bill.
9:39:03 AM
MR. JONES responded, "If we included this in the next report, we
would ... likely have maybe a year's worth of experience, and
thereafter every two years."
VICE CHAIR SEATON indicated there could be two successive
biennial reports.
MR. JONES said he thinks that would be reasonable and the allow
the division the time to put forward the required information.
9:39:50 AM
MS. KOENEMAN surmised that would mean a preliminary report in
2011 and another report in 2013.
MR. JONES indicated that that schedule would work for the
division.
9:40:46 AM
VICE CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, to
require a report to the legislature on Sections 14 and 28, to be
included in the two successive biennial reports after the
effective date of the bill. There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:41:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to the repealer
clauses in Section 42 on page 19. He said there is a repealer
of AS 36.30.250(b), which read as follows:
(b) In determining whether a proposal is
advantageous to the state, the procurement officer
shall take into account, in accordance with
regulations of the commissioner, whether the offeror
qualifies as an Alaska bidder under AS 36.30.170(b),
is offering the service of an employment program, or
qualifies for a preference under AS 36.30.170(e) or
(f).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Jones what the reason is for
that repealer.
9:42:30 AM
MR. JONES answered that that section is contained in HB 225 in
language that specifically addresses how preferences are applied
to a request for proposals or competitive sealed proposals -
that they only apply to the price portion of the proposals.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he understands that subsections
(b), (e), and (f) are preferences, but questioned why "is
offering the services of an employment program" is being removed
when it is not a preference.
MR. JONES responded that the employment program is a preference.
9:43:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG next asked about the repealer of AS
36.30.362, which read as follows:
Sec. 36.30.362. Award of a contract to a nonresident.
Except for awards made under AS 36.30.170, if the
procurement officer awards a contract to a person who
does not reside or maintain a place of business in the
state and if the supplies, services, professional
services, or construction that is the subject of the
contract could have been obtained from sources in the
state, the procurement officer shall issue a written
statement explaining the basis of the award. The
statement required under this section shall be kept in
the contract file.
9:44:14 AM
MR JONES explained that currently the procurement officer has to
write a determination as to the basis of the award to a
nonresident. He called this a formality, explaining that the
division is bound by the bidding process. He offered further
details. He said, "Writing the determination doesn't, frankly,
serve any purpose, because you're just following the competitive
procurement rules in the award. And to be honest, a lot of
folks don't comply with this statute, because it's overlooked
and it's unnecessary. They're awarding based on the award
criteria, and there's no discretion there."
The committee took an at-ease from 9:45 a.m. to 9:46 a.m.
9:46:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report HB 225, as amended,
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 225(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 205-PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND FOR DECEASED
9:47:47 AM
VICE CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 205, "An Act relating to the permanent fund
dividend of an otherwise qualified individual who dies during
the qualifying year; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 205, Version 26-LS0780\R, Cook, 4/11/09,
as a work draft.
VICE CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
9:49:13 AM
PAUL GRASSI, Staff, Representative Harry Crawford, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Crawford, prime sponsor
of HB 205, described the changes proposed in Version R. He said
the first change was language added stipulating that the person
who dies during the qualifying year would also have to have
qualified for a dividend for the year immediately preceding the
qualifying year. The second change stipulates that the person
must have been a resident of Alaska for at least 180 days prior
to his/her death. Mr. Grossi continued as follows:
The third change is a requirement that they be
physically present in the state or ... exempted from
the requirement under [AS] 43.23, I believe it's 008.
9:50:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON directed attention to the language on page
2, line 4, which read, "Notwithstanding AS 43.23.011". She
asked whether that statute allows an Alaska resident a medical
absence.
VICE CHAIR SEATON requested the committee focus on the three
changes that would be made through Version R.
9:52:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that in a letter [included in the
committee packet], Mr. Grossi writes that on page 1, line 14,
"and (a)(5)" was inserted; however, Version R shows "and
(a)(6)".
MR. GROSSI said the notation in his letter is a typographical
error and the correct notation is "and (a)(6)".
9:53:31 AM
MR. GROSSI reviewed the intent of Version R. He said the idea
for the bill was brought to the attention of the bill sponsor by
two widows whose husbands died in November and did not qualify.
He said it turns out there are others who have experienced
similar situations, and Senator Meyers is presenting a bill
which mirrors HB 205.
9:54:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN, regarding the 180 days, asked Mr.
Grossi to confirm that a person who dies just after the 180 days
- "if they make it until the end of June" - would qualify for
the dividend.
MR. GROSSI responded, "I believe that is correct."
9:55:25 AM
VICE CHAIR SEATON noted that the person would not have to have
been in the state for 180 days, because the language states that
he/she must maintain residency - it does not say he/she must be
physically located in the state.
MR. GROSSI responded as follows:
No, ... section 3 does require [the person to be]
physically ... present in the state. So, ... I'm
sorry, that third change in the ... CS does require
them to be physically [present] unless otherwise
exempted.
MR. GROSSI, in response to Vice Chair Seaton, offered his
understanding that that is shown in the language on page 2, line
2.
9:56:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN stated his belief that it is an
allowable absence for an Alaska resident to be in the Lower 48
to receive medical care.
MR. GROSSI confirmed that is correct.
9:56:51 AM
VICE CHAIR SEATON noted that the bill merely states that the
person has to have been a resident for at least 180 days; it
does not say the person had to be present in the state during
that time.
MR. GRASSI offered his understanding that any exception that
previously exists would be an exception under HB 205.
9:59:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he thinks the intent of the
proposed bill is to qualify the deceased person who had remained
a qualified resident, with or without exemptions, for at least
180 days before his/her death.
MR. GROSSI said he believes that is correct.
VICE CHAIR SEATON interpreted that under HB 205, the person
would not have to have been "physically present in the state any
of the time" before his/her death for that entire year, "because
that's an allowable absence."
10:02:08 AM
CHRIS POAG, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Commercial & Fair Business Section, Department of Law (DOL),
clarified the issue as follows:
Eligibility requirements are found in [AS 43.23.005],
and ... there's a variety of eligibility requirements.
And this is s test to determine whether or not you're
a bonafide Alaskan resident for purposes of the
dividend. We're creating them because a deceased
person couldn't apply to the department ..., they
couldn't be a state resident on the date of
application, and because the allowable absence
provisions say you have to be absent with intent to
remain, we've created exemptions from those
requirements, and what exists is a requirement that
you be a state resident - as state resident is defined
in the statutes and the regulations - for 180 days
prior to your death. So, ... state residence doesn't
itself require physical presence; it says you have to
be here with an intent to remain or, if you leave, you
have to be absent with the intent to return. And we
do have a regulation that further defines what it is
to be a state resident and to maintain your state
residency.
So, you're correct, Representative Seaton: in theory
a person could be gone for that 180 days, die outside
of Alaska, and still qualify under this bill. And
certainly, whatever the will of the committee is, we
can draft it so that's not an intended consequence,
but as I read this provision, that's how it could be
interpreted.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she thinks that is okay, because that
is not different than the exemptions allow currently. Many
times the reason a resident is Outside is because he/she is ill
and is getting treatment unavailable in Alaska.
10:04:32 AM
MR. POAG, in response to Representative Gruenberg, confirmed
that [HB 205] stipulates that the otherwise qualified resident
would have to have lived for at least 180 days of the year
before dying in order to qualify for that year's dividend.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he tends to support that.
10:05:12 AM
MR. POAG, in response to a question from Representative
Petersen, said a death certificate is proof positive of the date
of death.
VICE CHAIR SEATON remarked that he thinks the wording [in
Version R] has changed significantly from the purported need of
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said someone could be on a cruise
beginning January 1, for five months, and could be planning to
return to Alaska, but dies on the cruise. He said he thinks HB
205 is humane and is "intended to cover those people, too."
10:08:32 AM
MR. POAG stated that there are fairly rigorous requirements in
regulation related to maintaining residency, which the Permanent
Fund Dividend Division takes seriously. If any steps are taken
that "severs the residency," the person would not be eligible.
He said there is also statute which includes what is known as
"the touch-down requirement," which requires the person to have
spent at least 72 hours in the state in the last two years. A
physical presence requirement is currently not in HB 205, but
could be added by the committee; however, there currently are
provisions in existence to require the individual to maintain
his/her state residency.
10:09:21 AM
VICE CHAIR SEATON asked what it takes for a person to remove
his/her state residency.
MR. POAG replied that the answer to that is found in 15 A.C.C.
23 143, which has a general provision as to guidelines for
maintaining residency. Some reasons for losing that residency
include: claiming a nonresident motor vehicle tax exemption;
accepting full-time employment in another state; filing for a
part-year resident income for property tax returns in another
state; naming a claim of homestead property tax exemption in
another state; receiving an education from another state;
disclosure in a court proceeding an affidavit indicating that
the person is resident in [another] state; and executing a will
of residency in another state.
VICE CHAIR SEATON concluded that basically, a person has to
declare that he/she has permanently changed residency. He asked
how many people would have qualified under this provision this
last year.
10:11:17 AM
MR. POAG offered his understanding that the fiscal note
discloses the annual number of deaths during the qualifying
year, and projects a number of anticipated participants who
would qualify, which he said he thinks is "in the realm of
1,700."
VICE CHAIR SEATON confirmed that the fiscal note shows that
approximately 1,700 people would qualify per year.
10:12:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Version R conforms to "the
bill that is hopefully going to be on the floor today."
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff, Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska
State Legislature, confirmed that is correct.
VICE CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
10:13:22 AM
VICE CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to the motion to adopt
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 205, Version 26-
LS0780\R, Cook, 4/11/09, as a work draft. There being no
further objection, Version R was before the committee.
10:13:44 AM
VICE CHAIR SEATON stated that he has a problem with [Version R]
because it would "tremendously" expand the bill from its
original intent. He reiterated his previous points.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she feels that qualifications should
be the same whether a person is alive or has died, and she said
she likes the bill.
10:15:41 AM
VICE CHAIR SEATON clarified that the problem with the bill is
that "you don't know whether these people would have qualified
or not, ... because they could have been gone for 185 days -
they only had to be here for 180 days - that doesn't qualify you
for a permanent fund dividend."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that that is a five-day
difference.
VICE CHAIR SEATON continued:
That is if you were just starting from the beginning
of the year. I mean, you could have been here a month
and have left ... - or two months and left - and then
... four ... or six months later not having been here.
But you still maintained that residency because you
didn't declare a residency in another state. So, you
could have left in February and never returned and
died ... six months later, and that still qualifies
for a permanent fund dividend.
10:17:20 AM
MR. GROSSI said he thinks that one indicator that residency had
been established would be whether or not the individual in
question had received a dividend in "the year immediately before
the qualifying year."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that when dealing with people
who die, the people who are helped are their widows and orphans.
10:18:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 205, Version 26-LS0780\R, Cook, 4/11/09,
out of committee, with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
205(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
[VICE CHAIR SEATON handed the gavel back to Chair Lynn.]
10:18:58 AM
CHAIR LYNN made some committee announcements.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:19
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB0225A.pdf |
HFIN 3/11/2010 9:00:00 AM HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 225 |
| 01 HB 205.pdf |
HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 205 |
| 02 HB 225 Sponsor Statement.doc |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/11/2010 9:00:00 AM HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 225 |
| 03 HB 225 Sectional Analysis.doc |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 225 |
| 04 HB225-DOA-DGS-04-10-09.pdf |
HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 225 |
| 02 HB 205 Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 205 |
| 03 Sectional HB 205.PDF |
HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 205 |
| 04 Support.PDF |
HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 05 empire art.pdf |
HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 06 letter from l mason.pdf |
HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 07 letter from k neher.pdf |
HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 05 HB225-DOC-OC-04-13-09.pdf |
HFIN 3/11/2010 9:00:00 AM HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 225 |
| 08 email from m smith.pdf |
HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 09 email from m kajikawa.pdf |
HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 10 4-11-09 Draft CS for HB 205 Version R.pdf |
HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 205 |
| 11 HB205-DOR-PFD-04-13-09.pdf |
HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 205 |