Legislature(1993 - 1994)
05/05/1994 09:15 AM FIN
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 372 Act relating to community local options for control of alcoholic beverages; relating to the control of alcoholic beverages; relating to the definition of `alcoholic beverage'; and providing for an effective date. Co-chair Pearce directed that SB 372 be brought back before committee at this time. She noted that when the bill was previously before members, it lacked sufficient votes to pass. She then directed attention the "O" version of CSSB 372 (Finance) and explained that the new draft removes secs. 45, 58, and 59 of the previous "K" version. Sec. 58 would have prohibited a municipality from levying a property tax on alcoholic beverages. Some municipalities already have such a tax. Sec. 45 would have banned ability of a municipality to apply a sales tax to alcohol unless there was a general sales tax. Sec. 59 contained the increased tax on alcoholic beverages. Local option provisions remain the same as does the definition of "alcoholic beverages." The title was changed to remove the word "taxation." Co-chair Frank MOVED for adoption of CSSB 372 (Finance), "O" version. No objection having been raised, the "O" version of CSSB 372 (Finance) was ADOPTED. In response to statements by Co-chair Frank, Co-chair Pearce concurred that the newly adopted draft now contains only the local option changes requested by the department. Senator Sharp directed attention to page 30, lines 10 and 11 and raised questions concerning opt-out provisions. Co- chair Pearce directed that CSSB 372 (Finance) be held in committee pending the arrival of the legal drafter to speak to Senator Sharp's concerns. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 372(FIN) An Act relating to community local options for control of alcoholic beverages; relating to the control of alcoholic beverages; relating to the definition of `alcoholic beverage'; relating to purchase and sale of alcoholic beverages; relating to alcohol server education courses; and providing for an effective date. Co-chair Pearce directed that attention revert to earlier adopted CSSB 372 (Finance). Senator Sharp reiterated concern regarding language at page 30, lines 8 through 11, and asked if it would allow a community of 25 people or more located 50 miles outside of the City of Fairbanks to hold a local option election, even though the community may be located within the Fairbanks North Star Borough. End: SFC-94, #82, Side 1 Begin: SFC-94, #82, Side 2 MIKE FORD, Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, came before committee. He referenced bill language and noted that "established village" means an unincorporated community. Discussion focused on the designation "unified municipality." Co-chair Frank voiced his understanding that Anchorage, Juneau, and Sitka are the only unified municipalities within Alaska. Senator Rieger voiced concern that, as presently drafted, the language could inadvertently be construed to allow 25 houses clustered "just outside the Fairbanks city limits but within the Fairbanks Borough" to hold a local option election because the group is located more than 50 miles outside the boundary limits of the nearest unified municipality which is Anchorage. He suggested that language speak to a unified municipality "adjacent" to the organized borough in question. Mr. Ford said that his reading of bill language would not apply the interpretation suggested by Senator Rieger. The bill is intended to focus on unincorporated communities in an organized borough prior to meeting other bill criteria. Senator Rieger raised questions concerning application of the bill to communities within the MatSu Borough and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Senator Sharp expressed concern that the bill does not say that the unified municipality has to be within the organized borough. Co-chair Pearce asked if members wished legal services to draft alternative language. Senator Rieger observed that communities in close proximity to a unified municipality are often difficult to identify. Housing flows from one section to another. Elsewhere in the state, however, communities are more easily defined. He cautioned that, as drafted, the bill provides a window for strained application. Co-chair Pearce suggested that, in the interest of time, the bill pass from committee with the understanding that Mr. Ford would work on clarification language that could be offered on the floor of the Senate. Senator Kerttula asked if the Co-chair's proposal would be predicated upon Senator Sharp's satisfaction with the new language. Co-chair Pearce answered affirmatively. Mr. Ford also concurred. Co-chair Frank MOVED for passage of CSSB 372 (Finance) with the understanding that amending language would be prepared for possible application in second reading on the floor of the Senate. No objection having been raised, CSSB 372 (Finance) was REPORTED OUT of committee with the noted caveat. Co-chairs Pearce and Frank and Senators Kelly and Rieger signed the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation. Senators Kerttula signed "do not pass." Senator Sharp signed "do pass if amend." Senator Jacko was absent from the meeting and did not sign. The bill was accompanied by a $1.06 fiscal note from the Office of the Governor/Elections and zero notes from the Dept. of Public Safety and Dept. of Revenue/ABC Board.