Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
02/06/2006 05:00 PM House ECONOMIC DEV., TRADE, AND TOURISM
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB382 | |
| Presentation: Juneau Economic Development Council | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 382 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 382-RECORKING WINE SERVED WITH A MEAL 5:18:50 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 382, "An Act relating to recorking, sealing, or packaging of wine served with a meal and removal of recorked, sealed, or packaged wine from licensed premises." 5:19:24 PM CO-CHAIR RAMRAS, speaking as the sponsor, explained that HB 382 is a recorking bill that relates to the consumption of wine on [a licensed] premise. He expressed his concern about the consumption of alcohol, blood alcohol concentration (BAC), and the safety of [Alaska] roads. He added that he's looking for practical ways to reduce the risk [of alcohol-related accidents] without generating a significant fiscal note in the process. 5:20:10 PM CO-CHAIR RAMRAS noted [the general] inclination [of patrons] to not surrender the value [of purchased wine] and expressed his desire to apply the "common sense" approach toward [taking uneaten food home] to the consumption of wine. He informed the committee that a wine recorking law, which has been adopted in 33 states, generates [a zero] fiscal note. This legislation would allow, as dictated by the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board, for a restaurant to recork a bottle [of wine]. 5:22:17 PM CO-CHAIR RAMRAS quoted from an e-mail written by Doug Griffin, Director, ABC Board, which read in part [original punctuation provided]: Speaking only for myself and not on behalf of the ABC Board, I support this legislation. ... This just removes one more excuse for a person to drink excessively and endanger the public by driving. This concern over moderate alcohol consumption leading to a potential DUI [driving under the influence] arrest has been heightened in the public's mind and for the hospitality business owners by the adoption of the .08 BAC standard. 5:22:55 PM CO-CHAIR RAMRAS opined that although .08 [BAC] is the criminal standard, [Alaskans] are "better off" if [patrons] leave a restaurant with a lower BAC as it is well known that [vehicle] drivers become impaired with the consumption of any [amount] of alcohol. He opined that although the [BAC] is legal up to .08, a consumer should not be faced with having to surrender the value [of the wine] because "in most cases, the consumer defaults to wanting to somehow enjoy the value that's in front of them, and if they can't take the bottle with them, then they consume it." 5:23:44 PM CO-CHAIR RAMRAS further opined that [HB 382] is good for restaurants because they are able to continue to sell wine, good for consumers because they are able to drink until they've had enough [wine], and good for public safety because some [patrons] will choose to enjoy the remainder of the bottle [of wine] in the safety of their home. Since [HB 382] falls under the provision of the ABC Board, he said that he is very confident that [the ABC Board] will establish a measure that will allow for [wine] to be safely recorked. He referenced information from the Internet regarding new [wine] corks and [wine] corking instruments - with costs ranging from $13.95 to $93 - [which are necessary] for a restaurant to properly recork a bottle [of wine] in order that the open container law isn't violated. 5:24:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to page 1, lines 10-12 [of HB 382], which read [original punctuation provided]: "a bottle of wine that is recorked, sealed, or packaged as provided in this subsection is not an open container if the cork reinserted by the licensee or the seal made by the licensee has not been disturbed." He asked, "Is there any way around having a cork inserted in a bottle that would allow it to still be an open container?" 5:25:18 PM CO-CHAIR RAMRAS responded that the public safety risk associated with one entering a liquor store and making his/her purchase an open container also, to some extent, exists with [HB 382]. He added that a recorker results in the [wine] bottle resembling its original form. 5:26:21 PM CO-CHAIR RAMRAS informed the committee that the ABC Board would have the ability to regulate the manner in which a bottle of wine is recorked to its satisfaction. 5:26:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that he could appreciate the cork being reinserted in a manner that a corkscrew is needed to uncork [the bottle of wine]. He expressed his concern about [patrons] reinserting the cork by hand so that the remainder of the cork protrudes, which would allow for [patrons] to uncork [the bottle of wine] again by hand. He said, "To me, that would not be enough." CO-CHAIR RAMRAS explained that the language [of HB 382] is worded such that a corking instrument would be required to remove [the cork]. 5:28:09 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN mentioned Mr. Griffin's e-mail, which read: "The bill provides for the ABC Board to establish safe and simple ways to address this issue and I do not see this as a problem." He added that fortunately, Alaska has the advantage of following 33 states [that already allow recorking]. 5:28:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that he and Co-Chair Ramras have a conflict of interest. He opined that [HB 382] is a "good common sense measure" and that he doesn't have a problem with it. 5:29:20 PM CO-CHAIR RAMRAS explained that in his private sector job, he as well as bartenders have had to chase people who wander outside with an open container because it's against the law. The intent behind [HB 382] is to make [Alaska] roads more secure by allowing [patrons] to have bottles of wine recorked to enjoy it in the privacy of their home. 5:30:55 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked, "Do you feel that any establishment would have a problem with any restitution from anybody trying to come back after them because it's been recorked? Do you think that those regulations pretty much have been established?" 5:31:17 PM CO-CHAIR RAMRAS answered that the liability isn't any greater than if [an establishment] serves [a patron] a glass of wine or over serves [a patron] who has an accident. He added that the standard liability is the same. 5:31:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in regard to product quality liability, inquired as to whether there have been any challenges to recorking in other states. He said, "You're taking and recorking a brand at your own establishment; I just wonder if we open ourselves up to any other liability." 5:31:59 PM CO-CHAIR RAMRAS confirmed that he would look into product quality liability before [HB 382] is heard by the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. He informed the committee that he has a conflict of interest since he controls two beer and wine licenses and two beverage dispensary licenses. He added that he sees people drink more than they intend to, of wine in particular, so that he/she doesn't surrender the value [of purchased wine]. He reiterated his advocacy for the "common sense" approach because he feels that it makes [Alaska] roads safer. 5:33:05 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, upon determining that no one else wished to testify, announced the closure of public testimony. 5:33:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 382 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 382 was reported out of the House Special Committee on Economic Development, International Trade and Tourism.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|