SB 51-STATE VENDING LICENSES  4:17:03 PM CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be the CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 51(L&C), "An Act relating to the operation of vending facilities on public property." 4:17:26 PM TOM OBERMEYER, Staff, Senator Bettye Davis, Alaska State Legislature, explained the changes in the bill that passed the Senate, labeled 27-LS0079\I, from the sponsor substitute. He stated the sponsor originally asked to insert additional properties available to the blind in SB 51 to change the definition of property to include school property and municipal property so that vending facilities would be available to more people; however, it was determined after discussions with schools and municipal entities that would not be feasible. The sponsor created a sponsor substitute to remove the language. He explained that the bill would pertain to six federal properties under the Randolph-Sheppard Act and to six state properties under the Chance Act of 1976. 4:18:58 PM MR. OBERMEYER read the sponsor statement, as follows [original punctuation provided]: SB 51 restores to blind persons first priority for a contract to operate a vending facility on state and other public property. This bill amends the Alaska Chance Act of 1976 to require that the state Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Business Enterprise Program provide the same first priority to the blind on state and other public property as it does on federal property enforced under the Randolph-Sheppard Act of 1936. The Alaska Chance Act for the first time added disabled persons in addition to the blind in preference for vending licenses on public facilities. This loss of first priority and expansion of beneficiaries has thwarted the spirit and letter of the Randolph-Sheppard Act. The resulting decrease in vending opportunities for blind merchants in Alaska exacerbated their already extraordinarily high unemployment rates among all types and severities of the disabled and the population in general. MR. OBERMEYER stated that this bill shows there are few opportunities in the state for blind or disabled persons. 4:20:27 PM CHAIR OLSON stated that Senator Davis has joined the meeting. 4:20:39 PM MR. OBERMEYER stated the total number of blind in the state may range upwards to approximately 1,200. He related that 9.3 million visually-impaired people live in the U.S. The recent U.S. Census asked whether disabled or blind persons reside in the family, but the census question did not distinguish between blind and disabled. 4:21:52 PM MR. OBERMEYER continued to read the sponsor statement, as follows [original punctuation provided]: SB 51 recognizes that the blind are dissimilarly situated compared to other disabled persons who do not suffer the same degree of impairment and unemployment as an economic matter. Although the State has combined management and training opportunities for both the blind and other persons with disabilities under one Business Enterprise Program of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, this bill requires that it must give first priority to the blind for vending contracts on state, federal or other public property. SB 51 comports with original legislative intent and gives first priority to the blind imposed under AS 23.15.100 prior to changes in 1974 and 2006 which added persons with disabilities and severe disabilities who currently compete with the blind for licenses on vending facilities on public property. It requires that the Division attempt to find and notify blind persons of vending opportunities as they arise on public property. These public properties may include among others court houses, military bases, state and federal office buildings, and other public properties. 4:22:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether there are an estimated 12,000 blind or visually impaired individuals in the state. MR. OBERMEYER answered he assumed the figures referred to the visually impaired, noting there are different levels of impairment for the blind and visually impaired. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the numbers of the severely disabled people living in Alaska. MR. OBERMEYER answered that he did not have the figures. 4:23:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the severely disabled would be barred from obtaining contracts. MR. OBERMEYER related his understanding they would not be barred. He explained that the Business Enterprise program was designed specifically to assist them. He further suggested that some procedures exist for the disabled to temporarily take the place of a blind person in the event a blind person was not available, which may result in long-term positions for the disabled. He pointed out that training is an important part of the process. 4:24:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related his understanding the disabled person might be able to take up the jobs. MR. OBERMEYER related his understanding, but deferred to the department or the bill drafter. 4:24:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether this bill would require the severely disabled to give up contracts. He further asked for the impact on the severely disabled. MR. OBERMEYER related his understanding that everyone with existing contracts would be grandfathered into the long term project process. He characterized the long-term contracts as essentially licenses since the contracts are indefinite in duration. He did not envision any threat to current holders of the vendor licenses. He pointed to Section 3, AS 23.15.133 allows the agency to contract persons who are not blind. He referred to subsection (d), when there is a vacancy occurs the agency will attempt to contact a blind person. He deferred to the bill drafter to indicate if any prohibitions from the blind not only taking disabled or other contracts for remote locations. He provided an example; noting that a facility in Kodiak could not obtain training for the vendor for the facility. 4:26:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked in instances in which there are not visually impaired or disabled people with first priority available to take the contract, whether any provision exists to contract out or if people could be hired on behalf of blind person. MR. OBERMEYER offered his belief that it is possible and in some cases it is almost imperative, such as an instance in which the facility has a large cafeteria so the vendor must hire others to assist them. 4:27:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether this pertains not just to operate the facilities but to contract to operate the facilities. MR. OBERMEYER deferred to the department to answer. He related his understanding some concern arose over the term contract, but that a contract is issued on a temporary basis to try to place people; however operating agreements/contracts are used even with long-term licenses, but again, he deferred to the department. 4:27:32 PM MR. OBERMEYER referred to the bill that passed the Senate, Version I. He reviewed the sectional analysis of the bill. He stated that Section 1 amends a provision dealing with powers and duties of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR). It removes references to persons with severe disabilities from the provisions dealing with the operation of vending facilities on public property. He stated that Section 2 directs the agency to issue a license for the operation of vending facilities on public property to blind persons who meet certain criteria, including criteria established by agency regulations. It requires these regulations to provide blind persons with first priority for a contract to operate a vending facility on public property. 4:28:21 PM MR. OBERMEYER detailed that Section 3 adds new subsections to the section on the issuance of licenses for vending facilities on public property. He stated that proposed AS 23.15.133(c) should allow the agency to contract with a person who is not blind to operate a vending facility until the agency can locate a blind person who qualifies to operate the vending facility. He detailed that proposed AS 23.15.133 (d) indicates that when a vacancy in the operation of a vending facility on state property the agency must attempt to contact blind persons directly about operating the vending facility. This proposed section would also direct the agency to work with private organizations to contact blind persons. This requirement is in addition to other procurement requirements of AS 36.30, the state procurement code. He clarified that news advertising is not sufficient. He reported that proposed AS 23.15.133 (e) allows a blind person operating a vending facility to operate another vending facility if the agency cannot find a blind person to operate the other vending facility. He recapped that it would allow for a multiple vending contract for an individual. 4:29:32 PM MR. OBERMEYER referred to Section 4, which deletes a reference to persons with severe disabilities from a provision relating to hearings on agency actions that relate to vending facilities. Section 5 would amend the definition of "licensee" to remove the reference to a person with severe disability. Section 6 would repeal a section relating to vending facilities operated by persons with severe disabilities. Section 7 indicates that the act applies to vending facility licenses issued and vending facility contracts entered into, on, or after the effective date of the bill. Section 8 states that the act does not affect a contract entered into before the effective date of the act, which answers the question of whether licensees would be have grandfather rights. 4:30:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether this would add work for the department since they would not use the regular notice process. MR. OBERMEYER deferred to the department to answer. 4:31:11 PM LOREN KEMPTON, Project Manager, Inspirational Action, Inc. (IAI) stated that Inspirational Action, Inc. is a nonprofit to help developmentally disabled people obtain contracts by offering a training program. She expressed the IAI concerns that by taking out language geared to the disabled strips their program. She highlighted that IAI is not asking for priority over the blind, but does not want to lose the job opportunities for the developmentally disabled. She related the progress people have made by the time the training is completed, including that after training they could take contracts and provide a living for themselves instead of having to rely on public assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or becoming homeless. She estimated that 65 percent of the homeless have mental or physical disabilities that prevent them from working. She said the IAA helps people overcome these hurdles. 4:33:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON thanked her for the service she provides. He asked whether this bill would hinder the IAI's ability to secure contracts if the developmentally disabled are given second priority. MS. KEMPTON answered that the developmentally disabled are already given second priority, which is not the issue since they are able to reach out and assist people. She explained the IAI does not want to lose "what little bit we do have." 4:33:43 PM SHERRYLYN MORELL, Assistant Manager, Inspirational Action, Inc. stated that she has had the pleasure to work with the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) to train people. She understood the point to give priority vendor contracts to the blind. She agrees with Ms. Kempton's testimony. She has worked with several people and she has learned as much from them as they have from her. 4:35:02 PM GARY JAMES, Employee, stated that he is employed by IAI. He got the job through DVR. REPRESENTATIVE MILLER thanked him for testifying. He asked him how long he has been part of the program. MR. JAMES answered he has been part of the team since October. REPRESENTATIVE MILLER related his understanding that currently without the bill the developmentally disabled or disabled persons have more of an equal footing with the visually impaired. MS. MORELL stated that she understood that the program already gave a priority to the blind with a secondary priority for the disabled persons. She explained that the bill removes any reference to disabled persons. 4:37:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked for the types of disabilities of those employed. MS. MORELL answered that IAI works with all disabled as long as it has been determined it is safe for them to work in food operations. She related that in her experience she has mainly worked with people with mild mental disabilities, but the IAI can work with people who have physical disabilities. 4:37:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether Mr. James likes his job. MR. JAMES answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked what his job duties entail. MR. JAMES answered that he is a back-up cook and operates the register. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether he was trained by IAI to perform his duties MR. JAMES answered yes. 4:38:10 PM CHERYL WALSH, Director, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), asked to address concerns the division has with SB 51. She explained that 13 business enterprise sites exist within the state, including one in Juneau at the State Office Building. This bill would direct the division to work with a private organization that specializes in the employment of blind people to contact them about business enterprise program (BEP) openings. She said she was unsure which private organization specializes in the employment for the blind. Thus it is difficult for the division to determine associated costs since the organization is not identified in the bill. She emphasized that the DVR is the organization that specializes in the employment of people who are blind. 4:39:44 PM MS. WALSH stated it is also unclear whether the passage of SB 51 would allow the division to combine its two programs. The DVR has a separate program for state sites and one for federal sites. These program divisions are necessary since the program includes people with severe disabilities at state sites. Therefore federal dollars cannot be used on state sites. She stated that a person with a severe disability currently works on a state site. That individual holds an indefinite license to the site and would be grandfathered in. She said she was unsure if the division can divide or combine the programs and the funding mechanism for the position or associated benefits. MS. WALSH explained that licenses are granted for an indefinite period of time. She was also unsure when the person may choose to retire, noting the DVR can only remove a person if they terminate voluntarily or for cause, which is defined in regulation. 4:41:16 PM MS. WALSH expressed other concerns. She stated that SB 51 is unclear as to whether it is establishing first priority for blind persons for all BEP contracts or if it is limited to temporary contracts, which could impede the division's ability to manage the program. She related that the division issues temporary contracts to industry or subject matter experts, particularly if a feasibility study needs to be done on a site to determine viability. Additionally, feasibility studies are done if the DVR is considering a site as a training site, in which the division would bring in an industry expert on coffee carts or for other specific training. She expressed concern that a blind person may not have the expertise to meet the business or programmatic needs of the temporary contracts. She stated that the division believes the first priority should be limited to the permanent assignment or licensing of a vending facility and not to temporary contracts. The bill would allow a blind individual to operate another facility even if he/she already is permanently assigned to a facility if the division cannot locate an individual. She pointed out that blindness is a low incidence disability so it is possible the division may have an opportunity to open a new site or a vacancy could occur at a time without a current trained blind person to immediately assume the contract or facility. She further stated that the bill is unclear as to the length of time the division must keep the contract open. Further once the site is offered to a permanent vendor the site is locked up permanently. She expressed concern this may lead to future lawsuits. She indicated it was also unclear how many sites a currently licensed individual would be allowed to have since people advance in the system based on seniority and experience. This could lead to people taking over multiple sites and diminishing the number of sites available to others entering the program or for transfer or promotional opportunities for others. 4:44:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what happened to the coffee cart in the entry way at the State Office Building. MS. WALSH said she was not sure. 4:44:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether costs would be associated with any outreach. MS. WALSH answered that she was not certain who the outreach would be directed at and the need for it. She explained that currently all the individuals in the program are certified by the DVR. They apply with the client services program and identify a goal to become a dining facility manager or snack bar manager and the division writes a plan. She related that the division is aware of the certified managers and have a committee of blind vendors the division works with who represent all of the current vendors. She said she was certain that anyone who moved to Alaska who had been certified from another state would contact them about participating in the DVR's program. 4:45:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked for the length of the training. MS. WALSH answered that the initial training is for six months, which involves some testing and job shadowing. She stated that they provide a $500 training stipend for continuing education (CE). Additionally, the blind vendors hold an annual meeting with training provided by industry experts. She attended one last year that showcased a variety of foods vendors may wish to add to their menus. 4:46:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked for an estimate of the number of the blind as compared to all other divisions. MS. WALSH referred to a chart that indicated the DVR placed 29 individuals who were blind in other occupations outside the BEP sites within the past two years, plus the 13 facilities, 10 of which are operated by blind individuals. She explained that the blind is a lower incidence disability and that the division worked with 2,500 cases of people with disabilities. She estimated less than five percent of the cases would be for blind individuals. 4:47:53 PM RICK RENAUD, Chief Executive Officer, Pentagon North, Inc. (PNI);, Chief Executive Officer, Inspirational Action Inc. (IAI), stated that IAI is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization. He said he is also a BPE vendor. He explained that both organizations provide food service to state and federal facilities and employment training to people with disabilities. He referred to the sponsor statement for SB 51, which indicates a loss of employment and priority for persons with blindness to hold and operate vending facilities on state and other public properties. He refutes this document on the basis that people like him with severe disabilities are involved in the decrease of vending and employment opportunities on state and public properties including court houses, military bases, and office buildings. He explained that disabled people will make a difference with respect to employment of the blind. He took issue with the first statement of the sponsor's statement which states that that SB 51 restores to blind persons first priority for a contract to operate a vending facility on state and other public property. He said it is impossible to restore what was never taken away in the first place. The Alaska Chance Act of 1976 and its related programs has had clear clauses regarding first priority for the blind which still holds true according to AS 23.15.210, and Ms. Walsh's testimony. 4:50:53 PM MR. RENAUD emphasized that the act does not indicate that the blind do not have priority for vending contracts. Furthermore, he argued against the implication that the inclusion of people severe disabilities in the Chance Act has hindered opportunities for the blind to gain vending contracts or employment. He pointed out that the blind vendors' committee removed three federal facilities from their program. Additionally, two other state facilities have remained vacant for over two years because there has been no success in finding qualified blind merchants to occupy the spaces. He emphasized that it is not that there is a lack of opportunities since they have been taken over by vendors with other disabilities, but rather that blind vendors and associated programs have been giving up these opportunities and have not taken advantage of them. He highlighted that the lack of employment among the blind has little to do with the disabled and has more to do with the blind vendors and their associated programs. He indicated that if there is a real difference in employment rates that more needs to be done from within. He acknowledged that there is indeed a problem of extreme high unemployment rates among persons who are blind. According to a report of federal programs for unemployment for persons with disabilities, in 2004, 337 blind workers were hired out of 2,681 licensed BPE vendors and even less workers with disabilities; however, the number of workers hired without any disabilities was 6,607. Therefore in order to create more employment opportunities blind vendors and programs need to hire and train more people who are blind. He concluded by pointing out that the problem is not expanding opportunities of vending locations for the blind by taking away the opportunities made available to the severely disabled, but finding trained, experienced blind vendors who are willing to fill the positions. He concluded that it shouldn't be the fault of people with other types of disabilities with qualifications, but rather on the programs to train and prepare the blind. 4:53:55 PM CAROL RENAUD stated that she is a person with severe disabilities. She said that if the legislature takes away the program that it will not be available when she may need it. She might be forced to go on welfare or apply for social security benefits (SSI). She related that she can currently work part time. 4:55:04 PM LYNNE KORAL, testifying on behalf of herself, stated that she has been blind her whole life. She stated that she was told in middle school that she might not find a job as an adult. She surmised that people with other disabilities do not hear similar statements. She offered her belief that blind people are seen as the most feared and abhorred disability in the U.S., including cancer and aids victims. She said she olds two college masters' degrees and people are not willing to see the capabilities of blind people. She stated that this program was established in 1936 since blind people were not able to find employment. She recalled a blind man holding a masters' degree who committed suicide because he could not find a job. She emphasized that this program was not established to disenfranchise other disabled people, but was set up by the federal government to help those who are blind to attain gainful employment. 4:57:20 PM MS. KORAL stated that blind and disabled people want an opportunity for a chance at upward mobility. She stated that blind people have a disability that affects more than their mobility, daily living and communication. She reiterated that the public have a hard time understanding blind people can hold jobs and use specific technology and fear blind people. She has been told blind people can't be trained well. She explained that most people in the vending programs are visually impaired and not totally blind. She recalled people telling her she should have a realistic goal. She said she is not a vendor and does not want to be one, but she thinks that some of the issues many blind people have are related to their inability to find jobs and their lower standard of living. She pointed out the blind are treated by stereotypes, including that the blind cannot hold high-paying decent jobs. She offered her belief that if she was not blind she would be paid five times as much as she has been able to earn. She suggested that this bill is not about parity since the Chance Act of 1936 specifically gave blind people a hand up not a hand out. She emphasized that the blind need to continue to have the first priority, which has not been adhered to or implemented by the DVR. She said she has degree in public administration and social work so she understands the legislative process and political implications. 5:00:26 PM MS. KORAL recalled some 2001 figures for the blind. She indicated that the appropriate organization, the nonprofit that would help with employment would be the Alaska Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired, which would be at least as well equipped to train people as the DVR to help certify and train the blind. She characterized this bill as smoke and mirrors. She asked to get the facts on table and stop treating the blind as people who cannot be trained. 5:01:23 PM RICHARD GARDENHIRE, President, Alaska Independent Blind, stated the Alaska Independent Blind is a consumer organization of blind and visually-impaired people. He said he does not have a prepared statement. He asked to speak in support of SB 51. He related that like Ms. Koral, he is not a vendor, but is employable. He stated that several years ago he went to the DVR to apply for small business loan. He offered that he had blueprints and projected revenues. He related that the counselor said he/she was sorry and could not help him. He found that response to be discouraging since he was a DVR client who wanted to apply for a small business loan. He indicated that he did not necessarily need financial help as help to figure out how to buy and purchase equipment. He emphasized that time after time the DVR has violated the state statutes by not giving blind people the priority to operate the state vending stands. He concluded that he is speaking in support of the bill since the bill will clarify and better define what first priority means. 5:05:23 PM JIM SWARTZ, Alaska Independent Blind, stated that he is currently a BEP vendor. He said that he previously worked as the DVR's BEP Director from 1992-1995. He stated that the DVR trains and places hundreds of people in employment opportunities. He highlighted that BEP is unique in that the program was developed specifically for the blind and provides an employment opportunity. He emphasized that since he is an entrepreneur as are all the vendors within the program since they own their own businesses. He said that he owns Jimmy's Espresso stand located in the Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage. He employs six people, two of whom are blind, and one is deaf. In 2006, he applied for a vending stand in the court house and as a blind person should have received first priority. However, he was denied the opportunity and it was given to a non-blind person. He related that the non-blind person today is the CEO of two corporations; however, he still retains the facility denying a blind person of the employment opportunity even though it is very clear that the person should not have been awarded as vendor. He urged members to pass SB 51, since it does not deny anyone an employment opportunity, but just protects the right of the blind and their first priority for vendor jobs. He noted that he operated the coffee stand at the Juneau State Office Building. 5:08:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what happened to the stand. MR. SWARTZ offered his belief that the DVR mismanaged the facility and did not place a qualified vendor in the facility. 5:09:01 PM SENATOR DAVIS stated there is a real need for this bill, but she is not ready to move SB 51 forward in its present form. She noted that the bill is not ready. She expressed concern about the direction that the DVR is moving in and she would like to ask for an audit at some point to investigate some of the situations raised by the blind, including that they were not given priority for jobs. She also expressed concern about the training they provide and the need to improve services. She informed the committee she would be withdrawing her bill and would not request another hearing. CHAIR OLSON commended Senator Davis for bringing the bill forward. He advised the committee that the bill would be tabled. [SB 51 was tabled.]