Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
04/26/2007 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Community Services Block Grant Program | |
| HB232 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 232 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 26, 2007
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Anna Fairclough, Co-Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Co-Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kurt Olson
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Mary Nelson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 232
"An Act relating to the sale, distribution, and purchase of
alcoholic beverages; relating to a state database for records of
certain purchases of alcoholic beverages; relating to the
relocation of a license to sell alcoholic beverages; relating to
procedures for local option elections for control of alcoholic
beverages; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 232
SHORT TITLE: ALCOHOL SALE/PURCHASE/DISTRIBUTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MEYER
04/04/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/07 (H) CRA, JUD, FIN
04/12/07 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/12/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/07 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/26/07 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JILL DAVIS, Grants Administrator III
Division of Community Advocacy
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided remarks regarding the Community
Services Block Grant (CSBG) Program.
DAVID HARDENBERGH, Executive Director
Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc. (RurAL CAP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided remarks regarding RurAL CAP and
the work it does with the funds from CSBG.
JO GROVE, Grants Manager
Fairbanks Office
Division of Community Advocacy
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commended RurAL CAP on its work.
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff
to Representative Kevin Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 232 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Meyer.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section - Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 232, answered
questions.
DOUGLAS GRIFFIN, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ("ABC Board")
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 232, answered
questions.
LOUISE STUTES
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed a concern with HB 232.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04:36
AM. Representatives LeDoux, Fairclough, Dahlstrom, and Neuman
were present at the call to order. Representatives Cissna and
Salmon arrived as the meeting was in progress. Also in
attendance were Representatives Edgmon and Nelson.
^Community Services Block Grant Program
8:05:08 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would
be to take public comment on the state's draft plan for the
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Program in fiscal year
2008.
8:05:48 AM
JILL DAVIS, Grants Administrator III, Division of Community
Advocacy, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic
Development (DCCED), paraphrased from the following written
remarks [original punctuation provided]:
I am pleased to participate in this Public Hearing
concerning the Draft State Plan for the Community
Services Block Grant Program for Federal Fiscal Year
2008. The Department of Commerce Community & Economic
Development would like to accept comments from the
public on the proposed use and distribution of these
funds.
Community Services Block Grant funds are allocated to
the Department of Commerce Community & Economic
Development for distribution to the State's only
Community Action Agency, RurAL CAP Inc. We anticipate
receiving approximately $2.4 Million in FFY 08
although that number could increase or decrease
slightly. The State is authorized to keep a maximum
of 5% of the funds to cover administrative costs.
The balance of funds are made available to RurAL CAP.
The purpose of the CSBG Program includes supporting
activities designed to address one or more of the
following:
· to assist low-income families and individuals,
homeless persons, migrant or seasonal farm
workers, and elderly low-income persons
· to remove obstacles and solve problems that block
the achievement of self-sufficiency;
· to secure and retain meaningful employment;
· to attain an adequate education with particular
attention toward improving literacy skills;
· to make better use of available income;
· to obtain and maintain adequate housing and a
suitable living environment;
· to obtain emergency assistance to meet immediate
and urgent needs;
· to achieve greater participation in the affairs
of the community;
· to address the needs of youth in low income
communities through youth development programs;
· and to make effective use of and coordinate with
other programs related to the purposes of the
Community Services Block Grant Program.
The Draft State Plan, on which we are accepting
comment today, outlines how the Department administers
the CSBG program and the activities which RurAL CAP
proposes to undertake during Federal Fiscal Year 2008.
Because the State Plan is lengthy, I will briefly
outline the major components which the Department and
RurAL CAP have identified for the FFY 08 program.
RurAL CAP will utilize the CSBG funds to serve low-
income people throughout the State in several program
components. These include Administrative Services;
Anchorage Services; Child Development; Community
Development; Public Policy and Advocacy; and Rural
Housing & Planning Services.
Administrative Services Division: CSBG funds are used
to support agency clerical, logistical, public
information, development, and office managerial
services. This component also supports a Research
Information Center (library); Planning and Training
and Program Evaluation.
Anchorage Services Division: CSBG funds are used to
support the Homeward Bound Reintegration Program and
an Affordable Housing Component. Program products
include education, employment, job skills, training,
independent living skills, improved housing, decreased
substance abuse, and healthier families.
Child Development Division: CSBG provides funds for
the administrative oversight of Head Start, Early Head
Start, and Parents as Teachers programs in 24
communities and a Child Development Center in
Anchorage serving 27 children between the ages of 9
mos and 6 years of age.
Community Development Division: CSBG funds are used
to support the AmeriCorps Program; VISTA (Village
Council Management Program and the Vista Energy
Program); Rural Providers Conference; and also
supports the coordination and implementation of other
initiatives on substance abuse prevention, tobacco
prevention and control, the Early Decisions Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum (FAS), and the protection of indoor
air quality in rural homes. Program products include
education, employment, job skills, training,
independent living skills, improved housing, lower
fuel bills, less substance abuse, and improved
environmental conditions and healthier families.
Public Policy and Advocacy: This component strives to
empower communities, develop leaders, and to increase
the capacity of low income people to impact public
policy and to inform decision makers. These efforts
are best accomplished by developing relationships
between low income people and decision makers; by
increasing skills and understandings of low income
people which increase their ability to change
conditions which do not work in their communities and
beyond.
Rural Housing and Planning Services Division: CSBG
funds assist RurAL CAP in forming strategic
relationships with Tribally Designated Housing
Entities, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.
Department of Housing & Urban Development, Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation, and private sources to
secure funding for Housing Rehabilitation and
Weatherization Services; Self-Help Housing; Capital
Project Services; and Housing Advocacy. This
component also assists with Community Planning
activities; Capacity Building; and Interagency
Coordination activities.
Each of these components are described in detail in
the Draft State Plan. In addition, David Hardenberg,
Executive Director and Shauna Hegna, Deputy Director
of RurAL CAP INC. are on-line in Anchorage.
David or Shauna will provide a more detailed overview
of each of these program components and answer any
specific questions you may have.
Also included in this year's State Plan are Outcome
Measures for each of the program components. Program
results are tracked and reported on a quarterly basis
in terms of the number of clients who achieve a given
milestone. Progress is reviewed by both RurAL CAP and
state staff and is used to evaluate results and make
program changes when necessary.
Both the Department of Commerce Community & Economic
Development and RurAL CAP place a strong emphasis on
promoting maximum participation by rural people in the
elimination of the causes and conditions of poverty.
RurAL CAP has demonstrated a sincere interest in
helping low income Alaskans and are recognized
nationally as a leader in providing not only
innovative programs which meet the needs of their
clientele, but also in developing exemplary Outcome
Measures. They are to be commended for their hard
work and their success.
Thank you for your interest in the Community Services
Block Grant program. Again, our purpose today is to
educate the public about the program and to accept
comment on the proposed use and distribution of funds.
With that, I would like to turn this over to David
Hardenberg.
8:14:22 AM
DAVID HARDENBERGH, Executive Director, Rural Alaska Community
Action Program, Inc. (RurAL CAP), paraphrased from the following
written remarks [original punctuation provided]:
Thank you Chairman LeDoux and good morning to the
members of House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee. My name is David Hardenbergh and I am the
Executive Director of the Rural Alaska Community
Action Program, also known as RurAL CAP. I started
working at RurAL CAP in 1986 and I've been the
Executive Director for the past three years.
The Community Services Block Grant is federal funding
that comes to the State of Alaska with the goal of
reducing poverty through community-based activities
which lead to a greater degree of self-sufficiency for
low-income people.
The funding comes to the Division of Community
Advocacy of the Alaska Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development and is administered
by the state Block Grant Program Manager, Jo Grove,
and Grant Administrator Jill Davis. They do an
excellent job handling the day-to-day responsibilities
of the CSBG program including preparing and monitoring
the State Plan.
As the only Community Action Agency in Alaska, RurAL
CAP is the only eligible recipient for 90% of the
state's CSBG funds. In FY 2008, RurAL CAP expects to
receive approximately $2.4 million in CSBG funds to
support programs and services for low-income people.
RurAL CAP is a private, statewide, non-profit
organization with 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. It is
one of more than 1,000 Community Action Agencies in
the nation which all work to build self-sufficiency
and empowerment among low-income people who desire to
pull themselves up out of poverty.
RurAL CAP is governed by a 24-member Board of
Directors representing every major region of the
state. The tripartite board is a balance of target
area village representatives, elected public officials
and private sector organizations.
The board meets quarterly, identifies major issues
affecting low-income people and sets agency policy.
The staff implements board policy through an applied
strategic plan and oversight of agency programs and
services.
RurAL CAP will use this core funding from CSBG to
leverage approximately $15 to $20 million in other
public and private sector funds to benefit low-income
Alaskans. The agency employs more than 350 people
annually in rural communities across Alaska through
Head Start, Early Head Start, Parents As Teachers,
AmeriCorps, VISTA, and Weatherization programs. In
2006 RurAL CAP provided services in 63 communities
across Alaska.
As an organization focused on alleviating poverty,
RurAL CAP applies the majority of its resources to
rural communities where poverty rates are typically
three times higher than in urban Alaska. Yet as the
only community action agency in Alaska, and one with a
mandate to serve people statewide, RurAL CAP also
provides:
· Head Start services to pre-school children and
their parents in Ketchikan;
· Home weatherization to qualifying low-income
residents in Juneau;
· Affordable housing opportunities to families in
Anchorage; and
· Support to UAF social work students through an
AmeriCorps partnership in Fairbanks.
Typical of the way RurAL CAP uses CSBG funds to
leverage services for some of Alaska's most needy and
disenfranchised is the story of the Homeward Bound
program. Based in Mountain View, this program serves
Anchorage's chronic homeless alcoholic population with
the goal of reintegrating people back into healthy and
productive lives.
The average Homeward Bound resident is a 48 year old
Alaska Native male who has been drinking for the last
26 years. He has spent the last 9 years homeless and
spent 116 nights in the last year sleeping in a local
sobering station. Many social service professionals
refer to this population as the "hard core street
alcoholics" and believe they are the hardest
population to serve.
Seed money from CSBG was used to help build
partnerships and obtain funding from HUD, the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation, and other funders to
support a 25-bed facility and individualized case
management program which has measurably improved the
lives of dozens of Homeward Bound residents. Through
participation in Homeward Bound, our residents have
moved from decades of homelessness to meaningful lives
in the Anchorage community. This program has been so
successful that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services recently inducted it as a
Promising Practice. This national recognition has
confirmed what RurAL CAP has known since we started
the program ten years ago - Homeward Bound gets
chronic homeless alcoholics off the streets. It helps
the residents secure and maintain stable housing and
jobs. Simply put, the program works.
The State Plan before you today contains detailed
examples of outcome measures for each of RurAL CAP's
CSBG-supported programs. This system of Results
Oriented Management and Accountability, or ROMA, has
received national recognition within the network of
social service and community action agencies as a
landmark model of comprehensive outcome evaluation.
With laser-like attention focused on identifying and
documenting measurable changes in the conditions and
behaviors of the people we serve, RurAL CAP's system
of program evaluation and accountability keeps both
our human and financial resources focused on improving
the lives of low-income Alaskans in ways that produce
measurable results.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of a member of
the general public, an elected official or one of our
funders, this is what I might think:
So ... you got all this money. You ran all these
programs. So what! So what difference did you make?
How many lives did you actually improve? How did you
improve them? What did we buy with such valuable
public resources?
Well we can tell you that. We can tell you exactly
what difference we made.
· We can tell you that during the 2005 - 2006
program year, we conducted 1,622 developmental
screenings through our Head Start, Early Head
Start, and Parents As Teachers programs. Through
these early detection screenings we were able to
identify if a child had difficulty with hearing,
vision, language, or other potential learning
barriers so that we could provide them with the
services they need before they enter
Kindergarten.
· We can tell you that our AmeriCorps members
installed carbon monoxide alarm detectors in 963
homes protecting 3,456 rural residents from the
harmful affects of this silent killer.
· We can tell you that during the 2006 program
year, 64 low-income households experienced an
average 31% savings in their annual energy costs
during the first year after their homes were
weatherized.
· We can tell you that during the 2006 fiscal year,
8 disabled Elders received accessibility
improvements to their homes through our
rehabilitation and weatherization program
ensuring that they could continue to live
independently.
· We can tell you that our AmeriCorps and VISTA
members organized or supported 1,758 healthy
activities for youth and that our VISTA members
brought $10.5 million dollars in cash and in-kind
resources into their rural communities.
· We can tell you that 100% of the preschool age
children who graduated from our Child Development
Center last year entered kindergarten school-
ready and prepared to learn.
· And we can even tell you that in 2006, 17
formerly homeless residents of the Homeward Bound
program, who had been picked up more than 100
times by the Community Service Patrol during the
12 months before coming into the program, have
successfully graduated and moved into homes of
their own.
RurAL CAP strives to be a responsible steward of
public funds. We run some of the most scrutinized
federal and state programs in the nation including
Head Start, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
programs, AmeriCorps, and CSBG. We pride ourselves on
being a grantee in good standing for all of our
programs and services. We place a high value on
getting clean financial and program audits, and we
strive to provide cost-effective services that get
results.
Again I want to thank our grant administrators and the
members of the House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee for participating in this hearing and for
your interest in the Community Services Block Grant FY
2008 State Plan.
8:25:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed frustration with the lack of
indexing in the CSBG State Plan book. She then asked whether
she could obtain a breakdown of statistics for specific areas.
MR. HARDENBERGH said he would provide that to Representative
Cissna. He pointed out that there are some additional summary
documents that present some of the very detailed outcomes in a
more readily accessible format.
MS. DAVIS then pointed out that following the attachments in the
CSBG State Plan book is the final report, which includes most of
the statistics mentioned.
8:27:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN recalled Mr. Hardenbergh's testimony
regarding the 17 individuals who participated in the [Homeward
Bound program] and ultimately moved in to affordable housing.
He asked if those homes were subsidized by RurAL CAP.
MR. HARDENBERGH explained that some of the Homeward Bound
graduates do move into some of the 40 units of affordable
housing maintained by RurAL CAP in Anchorage. However, he
pointed out that the aforementioned housing is open to the
public and thus it's a matter of timing. Mr. Hardenbergh also
pointed out that individuals in those units pay full rent,
although there's a subsidy in that the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC) provided RurAL CAP with below market loans in
order to purchase the properties. In order to obtain the below
market loans, RurAL CAP has to verify that they're occupied by
low-income residents.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN surmised then that the housing of those
[17] individuals was subsidized through RurAL CAP. Recalling
comments that $2.4 million is going to rural Alaska, he inquired
as to what is considered rural Alaska.
MR. HARDENBERGH opined that Alaska law contains many different
definitions of rural. He reiterated that RurAL CAP doesn't
limit its services to rural Alaska as RurAL CAP is a statewide
organization that provides services throughout the state.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if all of RurAL CAP's programs are
available to all low-income people in Alaska.
MR. HARDENBERGH replied yes, where there's a program. For
example, RurAL CAP provides Head Start services in 24
communities, but doesn't have the option of serving those low-
income individuals interested in Head Start outside those 24
communities.
8:32:44 AM
JO GROVE, Grants Manager, Fairbanks Office, Division of
Community Advocacy, Department of Commerce, Community, &
Economic Development, added that she has personally worked with
RurAL CAP on the CSBG program for over 16 years. She opined
that RurAL CAP has demonstrated a sincere interest in helping
low-income Alaskans. Furthermore, it has been recognized
nationally as a leader in providing innovative programs and
developing exemplary outcome measures.
8:34:09 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, upon determining no one else wished to testify
on the CSBG program, closed public testimony.
8:34:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if these programs are available to
everyone in the state equally.
MS. DAVIS pointed out that the 24-member board of RurAL CAP
represents the entire state and makes decisions on programs and
policies.
8:36:06 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH asked if individual programs submit grant
applications to RurAL CAP since it receives 90 percent of the
[CSBG program] funding.
MR. HARDENBERGH informed the committee that the RurAL CAP board
of directors goes through a strategic planning process for the
entire organization and submits a single funding application to
the state for the use of CSBG. He noted that RurAL CAP also
submits many other funding applications to other federal, state,
and private sources for funds to meet the mission of RurAL CAP.
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH surmised then that RurAL CAP doesn't help
other nonprofits by providing a grant opportunity to dovetail
with what RurAL CAP is requesting.
MR. HARDENBERGH said that RurAL CAP doesn't use the CSBG funding
for such, but RurAL CAP does have a small separate private
foundation that provides small grants to other nonprofits or
other local city or tribal governments for small projects.
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH explained that she brings this issue forward
because there are many nonprofits in local communities that
already have structure to provide a service. The federal,
state, and local governments, she opined, don't want duplicate
services. Therefore, she expressed concern if RurAL CAP's
strategic plan isn't folding in the resources available in local
communities in rural Alaska. She highlighted that there are
many other resources with bureaucracies in place that have
connections inside some communities to implement programs. Co-
Chair Fairclough expressed the need for there to be some
collaboration in local communities to support what's already
being done with RurAL CAP funding.
8:39:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if [CSBG] is part of the
legislature's budget process and if so, has it been fully
funded.
MS. GROVE related that the department requests federal receipt
authority for what it estimates it will receive for the CSBG
program. In terms of individual budgets for each program, those
are included in the CSBG State Plan, but those would be
estimates at this point. Once the department knows the amount
of [federal funds] it will receive, RurAL CAP provides an update
with the exact amount received by the program. In further
response to Representative Cissna, Ms. Grove confirmed that no
matching state funds are required or provided for the CSBG
program. The department would probably know the amount of funds
available next fall, in October or November.
8:42:20 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH clarified that the CSBG program may not have
a requirement for matching state funds, but the Community
Development Block Grant in Anchorage does. She suggested that
Representative Cissna may be thinking of the Community
Development Block Grant program.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA opined that it would be a good idea to
have an understanding of the potential overlap of services and
even obtain some reporting to compare budget requests.
8:43:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed interest in a smaller report.
He then inquired as to what will happen when the projected
federal funding decreases and deficit situation of the state
arrive.
MS. GROVE said that the department doesn't know exactly what
will happen with federal funding. This plan and the projected
$2.4 million estimate of federal funds is based on the
historical funding of the program. Since the CSBG program
doesn't require a state match, [any change in federal funding]
would have no bearing on the state. In further response to
Representative Neuman, Ms. Grove confirmed that there's no
contingency plan for a time of decreased federal funding.
8:45:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed the need to grasp how best to
coordinate [programs and funding] in order to avoid overlap and
waste.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:47 p.m. to 9:02 a.m.
HB 232-ALCOHOL SALE/PURCHASE/DISTRIBUTION
9:02:41 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 232, "An Act relating to the sale,
distribution, and purchase of alcoholic beverages; relating to a
state database for records of certain purchases of alcoholic
beverages; relating to the relocation of a license to sell
alcoholic beverages; relating to procedures for local option
elections for control of alcoholic beverages; and providing for
an effective date."
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX further announced that she's not planning on
moving HB 232 out of committee today. She then noted that
members of the Bush Caucus were invited to participate since HB
232 impacts rural communities of the state. She then noted the
presence of Representatives Edgmon and Nelson.
9:03:33 AM
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska
State Legislature, explained that Sections 1-2 establish a
statewide database for the written order system. The written
order system sets a limit in the amount of what a person can
purchase in a given month or what a licensee can ship. The
database is envisioned to allow the licensee to stay within the
law and the individual to track the amount of alcohol they have
had shipped. Section 3 prohibits a package store from shipping
alcohol to a person other than that person's address. Although
the aforementioned is specified in statute, this clarifies the
intent in statute. Sections 4-5 address the transfer of a
liquor license within a borough to a city, in which the Mat-Su
Borough expressed interest in order to foster economic
development. He explained that since liquor licenses are
limited by population and under a limited entry system, there
might be several licenses in a borough while very few available
in the city. Sections 4-5 specifies that when a local governing
body decides that the transfer of a liquor license from a
borough to a city is appropriate, it can allow the transfer.
Sections 6, 7, 11, and 12 prohibit an individual from purchasing
alcoholic beverages in a local option area from an individual
selling alcohol in violation of the local option. Mr. Pawlowski
pointed out that current statute only specifies that it's
illegal to sell [alcohol to individuals in violation of a local
option] while it doesn't speak to the individual purchasing
[alcohol in violation of a local option]. Section 8 changes the
time between the adoption of a local option and an election to
change that option from 12 months to 24 months. Section 9
prohibits a person from purchasing alcohol by written order on
behalf of another person. Section 10 prohibits the possession
of ingredients for home brew. Sections 13-14 are clarifications
to forfeiture provisions. Section 15, a substantive provision,
allows the establishment of a pilot project for alcohol delivery
sites. Sections 16-20 are instructions to the revisor.
9:07:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed concern with Section 10, and
inquired as to who determines "intent". He then stressed his
concern with regard to a state database that tracks individuals'
liquor purchases, which would seem to be personal information.
Representative Neuman then turned attention to Andy Lundquist's
email in which she highlights that computer access is necessary
to fulfill the mandate in HB 232, which could be a burden for
small licensees.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said that the sponsor is aware of those issues.
He acknowledged that the concern with Section 10 is valid, but
suggested that having the ingredients in conjunction with the
equipment necessary to brew alcohol would seem to make it clear
that an individual is brewing alcohol. With regard to the
concern surrounding privacy, he pointed out that the state
already tracks written orders. To address the privacy concern,
he suggested that perhaps the database could be purged on a
regular basis. Therefore, the state would collect information,
but not retain it. The concern for small licensees is fair, but
he pointed out that the written orders are done mainly through
larger businesses. In fact, most often the small licensee is
purchasing large volumes from one of the hub communities. Mr.
Pawlowski related that the sponsor feels that licensees have a
responsibility to ensure that he/she isn't violating the law.
9:11:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN pointed out that with the methamphetamine
database the store keeps the database and the state requests the
database if it's needed. Perhaps, the aforementioned could be
done with alcohol, he suggested.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said it's something the sponsor could review.
9:12:06 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH reminded the committee that HB 232
implements several of the recommendations made in the Alaska
Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission Report. This
legislation allows Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs) as
well as state troopers to enter dry and damp communities to
garner a better case when enforcing the local option in place.
Co-Chair Fairclough reviewed the committee's concerns from the
last meeting and today's meeting. With regard to concerns
expressed regarding the local elections, she opined that the
state isn't trying to control local elections but rather that
more time is allowed for a community to [settle into] its local
option before changing it.
9:14:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON related her understanding that under HB
232 there can't be an election [on the local option] prior to 24
months after the existing local option was implemented.
MR. PAWLOWSKI explained that Section 8 specifies longer
timeframes in which [a community with a local option in place]
can have a special election to remove or go to a less
restrictive option.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX surmised then that a community with a local
option could go to more restrictive option within short period.
MR. PAWLOWSKI deferred to Ms. Carpeneti.
9:16:05 AM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section - Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, pointed
out that Section 8 is current law. Current law provides that
there can't be an election that would remove a local option or
adopt a less restrictive option within 12 months [of adopting or
changing a local option]. After hearings throughout the state,
the Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission decided
that the aforementioned probably wasn't adequate time for a
local option to take effect. Therefore, the recommendation was
to extend the time from 12 months to 24 months. In further
response, Ms. Carpeneti noted that statute allows elections for
several local options sooner than 12 months.
9:17:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked if anything precludes a community
from placing such a question on a regular ballot.
MS. CARPENETI said she believes that's allowed, but offered to
confirm that.
9:18:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired as to the meaning of the language
in Section 8 on lines 19-20.
MS. CARPENETI explained that under current law there are
limitations regarding how often a community can hold local
option elections. She surmised that the Alaska Rural Justice
and Law Enforcement Commission was probably thinking that since
the time between elections was changed from once every 12 months
to 24 months, then it would probably be necessary to extend the
general time period between elections. Ms. Carpeneti reiterated
her understanding that the notion was to provide local options
more time to take effect as there are adjustments that have to
be made, such as the closure of package stores. In further
response to Representative Edgmon, Ms. Carpeneti clarified that
current law provides that a community can't remove an option,
but it can adopt a more restrictive option in less time.
9:21:30 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX related her understanding that communities will
have to abide by this election law; it isn't a local option to
adopt the time periods specified in HB 232.
MS. CARPENETI replied yes.
MR. PAWLOWSKI related his understanding that the ballot comes at
a regular special election that's left to the municipality to
decide, which is clearly stated in AS 04.11.507(b):
(b) Upon receipt of a petition of a number of
registered voters equal to 35 percent or more of the
number of votes cast at the last regular municipal
election, the local governing body of a municipality
shall place upon a separate ballot at the next regular
election, or at a special election, whichever local
option, change in local option, or removal of local
option constitutes the subject of the petition. The
local governing body shall conduct the election under
the election ordinance of the municipality.
9:23:02 AM
MS. CARPENETI, in response to an earlier question by
Representative Neuman, clarified that the database applies to
local option areas that are damp only. Furthermore, the
database applies to written orders by people who live in local
option damp areas. Currently, before responding to a written
order from a resident of a local option community, the licensee
is required to keep records of purchases for a year. The
licensee is required to notify the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board ("ABC Board") of those ordering more alcohol than the
local option allows. Ms. Carpeneti explained that currently
there is no mechanism for a licensee to see if other licensees
have filled the order for the month, which the proposed database
in HB 232 would provide.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed concern that small business
owners, under HB 232, would be required to have a computer in
order to report this information to a database. He questioned
how far government can go into a private business.
MS. CARPENETI pointed out that the written orders are mainly
filled by large licensees in Anchorage. Depending upon how the
database is established, the law requires that the ABC Board
work with licensees, which she assumed could be done with a
phone call.
9:26:20 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH clarified that the data is already required
to be gathered. The only thing that's new is that the ABC Board
would have that data from those who distribute alcohol to dry or
damp communities. Co-Chair Fairclough opined that more people
could access the existing database than would be the case under
the proposed database in HB 232.
9:27:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON related her understanding that very few
companies do written orders for which a log must be kept.
Furthermore, a limit as to how much can be imported per person
in damp communities already exists. She pointed out that there
are ways in which to play the system and make it more difficult
to track the importation of alcohol. The reason, she opined,
that a database is necessary is for those who want to import
more alcohol than is legally allowed for personal consumption.
This legislation attempts to prevent gaming the existing laws.
She further opined that Alaska is a frontier state, which is
evident in the hub communities where residents feel they have a
constitutional right to drink alcohol. However, the Alaska
Constitution doesn't specify that. Representative Nelson
pointed out that many rural communities want to be dry, but have
difficulty doing so because the neighboring community is wet.
Many rural communities want to be dry and are saying that a
system that's harder to buy and sell alcohol is necessary, she
said. Representative Nelson noted her agreement with Co-Chair
Fairclough's earlier statements, adding that she isn't as
concerned with the statewide database as others.
9:31:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether those who do ship alcohol to
rural Alaska were consulted in terms of the additional work and
cost to them.
MR. PAWLOWSKI replied yes, [the sponsor] has spoken with a few
[licensees that ship alcohol to rural Alaska]. He then posed
the licensee's perspective in which the licensee would want to
ensure that he/she follows AS 04.11.150(g), although [currently]
it's next to impossible for a licensee to comply because of the
possibility of gaming. Therefore, the database provides a tool
for the licensees to ensure they are complying with the law and
for the communities to control the importation of alcohol.
9:32:50 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if it's currently illegal to consume
alcohol in a dry community.
MS. CARPENETI replied yes.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX then asked if that's been challenged on the same
grounds as the consumption of marijuana in the Raven decision.
MS. CARPENETI related that the local option laws were litigated
in relation to constitutionality back in the 1980s and early
1990s when first adopted. The local option laws have been
upheld by the court system. In further response to Co-Chair
LeDoux, Ms. Carpeneti related her understanding that the local
options were upheld in the context of criminal prosecutions.
She offered to provide the committee with the decisions. She
then mentioned, in response to earlier queries regarding
methamphetamines, that the federal government is discussing the
use of a database to thwart situations in which individuals
purchase the maximum amount of cold medicine from various
stores. Therefore, the use of the proposed database in HB 232
isn't that unusual.
9:34:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON informed the committee that for those
making a written order in Bethel, it's not delivered to a
person's residence but rather it's sent via air carrier and is
picked up from the air carrier. The aforementioned is addressed
in Section 3 of the legislation. Representative Nelson offered
that a large reason for the alcohol delivery site is so that
residents of a dry community can't order and pick it up from the
freight office and drive home. Those picking up alcohol from
the alcohol delivery site must be from a damp community.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX posed a situation in which a resident of
Kwethluk, a dry community, visits Bethel for a week and that
Kwethluk resident wants to do some entertaining while in Bethel.
She asked whether that Kwethluk resident would be able [to
purchase alcohol while in Bethel].
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON said that those from a Barrow area village
can't pickup alcohol from the delivery site.
9:36:44 AM
MS. CARPENETI, in response to an earlier question from
Representative Edgmon, pointed out that the definition of
"established village" is found in AS 04.24.080(9), which says:
(9) "established village" means an area that does not
contain any part of an incorporated city or another
established village and that is
(A) an unincorporated community that is in the
unorganized borough and that has 25 or more permanent
residents; or
(B) an unincorporated community that is in an
organized borough, has 25 or more permanent residents,
and
(i) is on a road system and is located more than
50 miles outside the boundary limits of a unified
municipality, or
(ii) is not on a road system and is located more
than 15 miles outside the boundary limits of a unified
municipality;
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked then whether HB 232 applies to those
communities with populations of 25 or less.
MS. CARPENETI related her understanding that an area with a
population of less than 25 wouldn't be considered an established
village and wouldn't be able to adopt a local option. In
further response, Ms. Carpeneti specified that HB 232 doesn't
change the local option law in any major way that would [change
the aforementioned].
9:38:46 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX drew attention to Levelock, a community with a
population of less that 25 permanent residents, and asked
whether it would be able to adopt a local option to be dry.
MS. CARPENETI said she would need more information. However,
she noted that [the local option law] is based on permanent
residents.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX then posed a situation in which a village with
30 residents enacts a law to be damp or dry. She inquired as to
what happens when six people move away from such a village.
9:40:50 AM
DOUGLAS GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
("ABC Board"), Department of Public Safety, said that [the ABC
Board] doesn't really address/monitor a community that
experiences a decline in population. The [ABC Board] makes sure
that a community meets the threshold of [25] permanent residents
at the time the local option is adopted.
9:42:50 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH, drawing from her local government
experience, said that a local vote on a matter not covered by
[or at a more restrictive level] than state law would be a local
control issue.
9:43:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to how PO Boxes are addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON said she believes that it's illegal to
ship alcohol through the mail.
MR. GRIFFIN pointed out that under 13 ACC 104.645(c)(5) it
requires the resident address of the purchaser.
9:45:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON requested explanation of Sections 13-14.
MS. CARPENETI characterized Sections 13-14 as conforming
amendments. She explained that current law prohibits a person
from bootlegging alcohol but doesn't prohibit a person from
purchasing bootleg alcohol. This legislation would make the
purchase of alcohol from a bootlegger a class A misdemeanor.
She further explained that the forfeiture statutes in Title 4
allow forfeiture of airplanes, boats, automobiles, and various
other types of transportation that transport bootleg alcohol
into a community in violation of the law. This legislation
would allow the existing law, forfeiture of the alcohol in
connection with a conviction for selling, to continue while
excluding the forfeiture of vehicles in connection with the
conviction for purchasing.
MR. PAWLOWSKI pointed out that the provision cited
[04.11.499(a)] in Sections 13-14 is from Section 7.
MS. CARPENETI commented that to make the minor change, all the
forfeiture provisions had to be changed to exclude forfeiture
under the circumstances of the purchase.
9:47:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said that Section 10 is of concern with
the definition of "material and equipment" and "with the
intent". Drawing upon his experience living in rural Alaska, he
said that there are times when law enforcement is at odds with
the local leadership or a specific resident and thus "with the
intent" could mean various things. He questioned the
implications if the language if it's broadly interpreted.
MS. CARPENETI said that it's a specific intent and defense,
which isn't an uncommon defense in criminal law. Furthermore,
it's the most difficult to prosecute because it has to be proven
that a person did an act with the specific intent to do
something else. She pointed out that there are other [similar
statutes] with regard to the possession of precursors to
methamphetamine with the intent to manufacture meth, which is
illegal. She also pointed out that it's illegal to possess
burglary tools with the intent to commit burglary. Ms.
Carpeneti emphasized that it's very difficult to prosecute this
because it has to be proven that the individual possessed the
item(s) with the specific intent to perform an illegal act.
Therefore, she opined that the crime addressed in HB 232 will
probably only be prosecuted if there is an admission or an
extraordinary situation.
9:49:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON commented that just merely being charged
[with purchasing alcohol in a dry community] is a hindrance
itself.
MS. CARPENETI pointed out that the aforementioned is the case
with all laws.
9:50:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON surmised that the term "vehicle" refers to
snow machines and all terrain vehicles (ATVs).
MS. CARPENETI replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON thanked the committee for inviting [the
Bush Caucus] to comment on HB 232.
9:51:12 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX re-opened public testimony.
9:51:25 AM
LOUISE STUTES expressed concern with the provision allowing a
license [to sell alcohol] from the borough to be brought into
the city.
9:52:38 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony. She then announced that HB 232 would
be held over.
9:53:04 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH mentioned that there is a possible amendment
to Section 10 that would address the concern that law
enforcement could misuse their powers. Per the amendment the
language on page 5, line 29, would read as follows: "may not
possess quantities of sugar, artificial sugar, malt, yeast that
exceed personal use in excess of one year; and any other
material or equipment with the specific intent to use the
material or equipment to create an alcoholic beverage."
9:54:44 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:54:50 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|