Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/23/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB125 | |
| SB23 | |
| Presentation: Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Programs Update. | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 224 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 125
"An Act moving the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to
the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development and relating to duties of that department;
and providing for an effective date."
CRYSTAL SCHOENROCK, BUSINESS OWNER, NIKISKI (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation.
She thought the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Board was
putting the onus on the state troopers and police to
monitor local bars in her area. She expressed frustration
that two troopers had come to her bar recently and had
notified the bartender to close because she was without a
Techniques of Alcohol Management (TAM) card; the troopers
had not known that employees were allowed 30 days to obtain
the card. She believed the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED) would handle
licensing better than Department of Public Safety (DPS).
She stressed that the board needed to educate law
enforcement about their responsibilities related to the
issue.
Representative Gara asked for detail on rules related to
obtaining a TAM card. Ms. Schoenrock replied that
bartenders had 30 days from their date of hire to obtain
the card.
Representative Gara wondered why the trooper's mistake was
the fault of the ABC Board. Ms. Schoenrock did not believe
the mistake had been the board's fault, but that the board
needed to educate troopers on ABC Board regulations.
ANNA SAPPAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ADDICTION
PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION (via teleconference), vocalized
opposition to the legislation; the association did not
believe that the move would benefit the public or state.
She relayed that the board's focus on public safety and
enforcement had reduced youth alcohol consumption since
1995. She noted the negative repercussions of underage
drinking. She stressed that enforcement programs had the
power to save lives. She believed moving the board from DPS
to DCCED would interrupt or reduce current enforcement
efforts.
1:50:07 PM
KATE BURKHART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVISORY BOARD ON
ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE (ABADA), DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES, spoke against the legislation. She
emphasized that the 88 percent compliance rate was due to
the effectiveness of the ABC Board and the industry. The
continued decrease in underage drinking reports was
currently lower than the national average and was due to
the hard work of the prevention partners, communities, ABC
Board, and industry. She discussed less positive outcomes
in other states. The ABADA was concerned that gains towards
reducing underage drinking could be lost if the ABC Board
was moved to DCCED. The advisory board was concerned that a
transition plan had not been made public including, where
the ABC Board would reside and how the licensing support
would be provided. States that did not have the ABC Board
under a law enforcement agency had less positive outcomes
related to underage drinking and alcohol related
fatalities. She emphasized the ABADA's concern about
potential unintended consequences.
1:52:26 PM
SHIRLEY GIFFORD, DIRECTOR, ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, vocalized opposition to the
bill. The ABC Board had been working hard to adhere to its
audit recommendations. She invited the committee members to
ride along with board investigators on their compliance
checks. She believed much of the industry testimony had
been based on anecdotal information and noted that stories
always had two sides. Compliance checks had been going and
had increased from 700 to 804 in FY 10 to FY 11. Industry
had also increased its compliance from an 85 percent
success rate in FY 10 to an 88 percent success rate in FY
11. She stressed that compliance checks resulted in
compliance.
Ms. Gifford relayed that Jeff Jessee with the Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority, Diane Casto from Department of
Health and Social Services, Dr. Rivera from the University
of Alaska, and board members would meet to address
recommendations on underage drinking included in a
University of Alaska Anchorage report. She communicated
that the board worked with licensees on a daily basis to
help them succeed. She discussed that the ABC Board trained
law enforcement and licensees and their employees. She
pointed to reports that underage drinking in Alaska was
lower than the national average and believed that the board
had been doing a good job. She opined that the increased
compliance checks had added to the success rate.
1:56:55 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough asked whether there were two
enforcement officers. Ms. Gifford replied that there were
four state investigators: one in Juneau, one in Fairbanks,
and two in Anchorage. One of the investigators was a full-
time compliance officer and was funded by an underage
drinking enforcement grant through the Department of Health
and Social Services.
Vice-chair Fairclough referred to a complaint related to
aggressive compliance enforcement in business
establishments. She wondered how many complaints there had
been and whether there was a staffing issue that caused
some of the issues.
Ms. Gifford replied that she had received the first formal
complaint two days earlier. There had been instances in
which the Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant and Retailers
Association (CHARR) had asked questions about specific
occurrences that she had followed up on. She explained that
the group had been satisfied with the information she
provided.
Vice-chair Fairclough believed the formal complaint related
to the Eagle River area. Ms. Gifford responded in the
affirmative.
Representative Neuman asked how the move to DCCED would
change the ABC Board's enabling language. Ms. Gifford did
not believe a change would occur. She added that she had
not received any direction from the department on what
would change.
Representative Neuman wondered whether the board's
enforcement authority would change under DCCED. Ms. Gifford
believed the board's enforcement authority would not
change, but could not be certain.
Representative Neuman wondered what oversight DPS currently
had over the ABC Board. Ms. Gifford replied that the board
was housed under DPS for administrative purposes only; the
department provided computer support, personnel, and
resources, but her position answered to the ABC board of
directors. She did not expect the oversight would change
under DCCED.
Co-Chair Thomas referred to prior testimony from an
individual who had acted on a decision made by the ABC
Board related to a brewery license. He wondered what the
final outcome had been.
Ms. Gifford replied that the issue had been discussed at
the recent board of directors meeting; she believed the
board was on the road to rectifying the issue. The business
had not been shut down and the board was continuing work to
come up with a solution.
2:01:20 PM
Co-Chair Thomas wondered whether there was an employee
responsible for reappropriation of liquor licenses from one
location to another. He referred to a Skagway case in which
a license had not been done in accordance with the ABC
Board's policies. Ms. Gifford was not familiar with the
case.
Co-Chair Thomas explained that issue related to a pizzeria
that wanted to move a license closer to a cruise ship
location in the downtown area. The business owner had
fought ABC board decisions. Ms. Gifford replied that the
licensee had requested a duplicate license for her
establishment, but she had not received one.
Co-Chair Thomas asked whether there was an ABC agent
assigned to oversee the process. Ms. Gifford responded that
there was a licensing unit that included one supervisor and
two business registration examiners. Applicants were
assigned to one of the two examiners when they applied for
a license. She clarified that the license in question had
gone through the proper process and had not been approved
by the board.
2:04:15 PM
Representative Gara asked why ABC boards housed in non-
public safety departments were not as successful at
reducing underage drinking. Ms. Gifford did not have the
statistical information. She believed the majority of ABC
boards throughout the country were housed under public
safety or revenue departments and several were stand-alone
agencies.
DAVID LAMBERT, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
supported the bill. He opined that the legislation was not
anti-alcohol and was a bill designed to put the ABC Board
under the appropriate department. He explained that end-
users needed education, which would help with enforcement.
He stressed that the bill did not change the board's
enforcement power. He emphasized that the bill would
provide training and industry support and would help
people.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. He discussed the
sunset fiscal note that reflected the costs of the
department.
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CSHB 125(L&C) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion. He noted that
substance abuse agencies had a legitimate perspective,
which aimed at the reduction of alcohol abuse in the state.
He discussed the need to weigh how the bill would impact
the board and to determine what would maximize the board's
ability to enforce the laws to reduce underage drinking and
to increase compliance. He hoped DCCED would not divert
money towards the promotion of the state's alcohol industry
if the bill passed.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed that the fiscal notes reflected
that the board would be funded the same under DCCED as it
had been under DPS.
2:10:39 PM
AT EASE
2:12:58 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Co-Chair
Stoltze MAINTAINED the OBJECTION for further discussion.
Representative Doogan believed that the conversation
represented "one of the more baffling discussions" that he
had heard in committee. The bill, which was about moving a
board from one agency to another, seemed more innocuous
than it had been perceived. The legislature was involved
only because the law required it; he was not present to
judge the competency of the ABC Board. He did not believe
anyone had made a compelling case for or against the
transfer of the board.
Co-Chair Thomas referred to earlier discussion about a
business owner who had been given advice by the ABC Board
that it had later changed; the owner had been challenged by
the board only after investing between $2 million and $3
million in a business. He hoped the board would reimburse
the owner's legal fees related to the issue.
Co-Chair Stoltze believed there were merits on both sides
of the issue. He explained that the bill had not been
rushed through and there had been a significant amount of
public debate. He stated that the issue came down to a
policy call.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER spoke from his standpoint
chairman of the House Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee and explained that the HB 125 was not his
personal legislation. There had been a significant number
of public hearings on the debate and the committee had
issued a letter stating its opinion that the board should
be moved to DCCED.
2:18:17 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough explained that the appropriate fiscal
notes included: one zero fiscal note from DCCED and; one
fiscal impact note from DCCED containing an FY 13 $247,000
request and a total of $1,538.2 million in the governor's
FY 13 budget.
Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that the public safety fiscal note
would not be adopted.
Representative Doogan agreed with Representative Hawker's
characterization of the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee process.
Representative Hawker clarified that the bill represented
the lateral movement of an existing agency, which would
only be funded under one department.
Representative Guttenberg agreed with previous comments
regarding weighing the interests of both sides of the
issue. He believed it was important to "watch out what you
wish for," and a move to DCCED may not be as advantageous
as people thought.
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 125(L&C) was
REPORTED out of committee with a "no recommendation" and
with one fiscal impact note and one zero fiscal note from
the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development.