Legislature(1993 - 1994)

05/05/1994 09:15 AM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= 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                 
  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.                                       

Document Name Date/Time Subjects