Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS 519
03/24/2020 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB155 | |
| SB134 | |
| SB52 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 24, 2020
9:32 a.m.
9:32:45 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Johnston called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:32 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Co-Chair
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
ALSO PRESENT
Erin Shine, staff, Representative Johnston; Senator Peter
Micciche, Sponsor.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Anna Brawley, Title Four Review Coordinator, Agnew Beck,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
CSSB 52(FIN)am
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL; ALCOHOL REG
CSSB 52(FIN)am was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
SB 134 MEDICAID COVERAGE OF LIC. COUNSELORS
SB 134 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note by the House Finance Committee for
the Department of Health and Social Services.
CSSSSB 155(RES)
EXPLORATION & MINING RIGHTS; ANNUAL LABOR
CSSSSB 155(RES) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note:
FN1(DNR).
Co-Chair Johnston reviewed the meeting agenda.
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 155(RES)
"An Act relating to exploration and mining rights;
relating to annual labor requirements with respect to
mining claims and related leases; relating to
statements of annual labor; defining 'labor'; and
providing for an effective date."
9:35:26 AM
Co-Chair Johnston asked if the committee wanted a brief
introduction or had any further discussion on the bill.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to report CSSSSB 155(RES) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Johnston reminded members to stay after the
meeting to sign bills.
CSSSSB 155(RES) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published
fiscal impact note: FN1(DNR).
SENATE BILL NO. 134
"An Act relating to medical assistance reimbursement
for the services of licensed professional counselors;
and providing for an effective date."
9:36:58 AM
Co-Chair Johnston asked her staff to review the new fiscal
note.
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON, reviewed the
fiscal note written by the House Finance Committee. It was
brought to the committee's attention that the mental health
appropriation bill had already passed from committee and
contained mental health general fund funds that were in the
previous fiscal note. She reported a fund source change to
fund source code 1004 which was undesignated general funds
(UGF). The change in the amount of $911,200 could be found
in the fund source section. The change could be reversed in
a subcommittee or in the budget process in the following
year. Since the mental health bill had already passed, it
needed to be switched to general funds for the fiscal note.
Representative Josephson asked what fund source was used
previously. Ms. Shine replied that the general fund mental
health fund source code 1037 was used. The fund was still a
UGF fund but coded differently to track UGF dollars spent
on mental health items in the budget.
Representative Knopp asked for further clarification. Ms.
Shine responded that it was simply a designation to track
the funds through a fund source code. The fund source was
not to be confused with the fund source for mental health
authority receipts (MTAR). It was a designation of general
fund dollars used for mental health purposes.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to report SB 134 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 134 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note by the
House Finance Committee for the Department of Health and
Social Services.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 52(FIN) am
"An Act relating to alcoholic beverages; relating to
the regulation of manufacturers, wholesalers, and
retailers of alcoholic beverages; relating to
licenses, endorsements, and permits involving
alcoholic beverages; relating to common carrier
approval to transport or deliver alcoholic beverages;
relating to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board;
relating to offenses involving alcoholic beverages;
amending Rule 17(h), Alaska Rules of Minor Offense
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
9:40:21 AM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, SPONSOR, introduced himself.
Senator Micciche indicated the bill was a rebalance of the
alcohol industry. The bill represented a 9-year effort
working with a group of stakeholders including Public
Safety, Public Health, legislators, the industry, the
Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board, and the
public. The bill was about promoting a safe business
climate, the protection of public health and safety,
limiting youth access to alcohol, expanding local control
for municipalities, promoting responsible alcohol use,
reducing the harms of over-consumption, and implementing
change without negatively harming existing businesses and
responsible operators. In reviewing the bill, members would
likely want to change something. He reiterated the efforts
that had been made to reach the current version. He
requested that the committee members keep an open mind. As
a legislator, he understood about the natural inclination
of improving things.
Senator Micciche reported that many of the changes to the
bill had taken many months of deliberation before a change
was approved, such as the provision regarding local control
options for municipalities. He argued that no one would get
everything they wanted in the bill. However, everyone would
get something. The philosophy was that a rising tide
floated all boats. It was not about protecting one
individual's piece, but about sharing an expanding pie.
There were elements important to the visiting industry,
resorts, bars, municipalities, breweries, and distilleries.
He deferred to Ms. Brawley to provide a PowerPoint
Presentation.
9:44:02 AM
ANNA BRAWLEY, TITLE FOUR REVIEW COORDINATOR, AGNEW BECK,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board
Title 4 Review Project: Overview of Senate Bill 52," dated
March 20, 2020 (copy on file.)
Ms. Brawley began with slide 2 to discuss the need for
alcohol control and Title 4. She reiterated that the
project was a result of many years of work. As Senator
Micciche alluded to, alcohol was not like other
commodities. There was always a balance between the social
and economic benefits of alcohol against the social harms
or costs of its misuse.
Ms. Brawley turned to slide 3 and explained that the bill
was a product of eight years of work, over 120
stakeholders, and significant discussion about each section
of the bill.
Ms. Brawley discussed the diverse stakeholders of the bill
on slide 4. The slide provided an overview of the diverse
stakeholders that were involved including public health and
safety, law enforcement, each tier of the industry,
community advocates, and local governments. The group was
very diverse bringing many different perspectives to the
legislation.
Ms. Brawley spoke of the goals of the Title 4 review
process on slide 5. The review was comprehensive in order
to make Title 4 work better for everyone. She indicated
that in 2012, the ABC Board identified all the different
issues the many stakeholders had brought up to improve the
laws. The goal was to promote a fair business climate,
protect public health and safety, and to make Title 4 a
clear and consistent legal framework cleaning up several
issues that had been piling up over the years.
Ms. Brawley turned to slide 6. She relayed that in the bill
there were some key concepts in Title 4 including a 3-tier
system and the difference between a license and a permit.
She explained that a license allowed a business to serve or
sell alcohol or other privileges for 2 years which was core
to business, versus a permit which was usually a one-time
event or specific occasion done by a licensee or an
unlicensed entity. Another concept pertained to population
limits. She would also be introducing the new concept of
endorsements.
Ms. Brawley continued to slide 7. She indicated that the
3-tier system was something that pre-dated statehood. It
was something developed at the national level after
prohibition. She reported that every state had a version.
The 3-tier system essentially stated that those who
manufactured and distributed beer should be separate from
those who were selling beer to the public. The system was
designed to prevent monopolies within the industry. The law
had been in place for more than 80 years. There had been
several developments since the law's inception. A balance
was being struck in the bill between the system that
already existed, the changes in the industry, and the
changes in consumer demand.
Ms. Brawley turned to slide 8 which showed the different
categories of recommendations. They corresponded to
subcommittees that met for multiple years to discuss
various issues in Title 4. She read the list:
Categories of Recommendations
• Alcohol Licenses, Permits and Trade Practices
• Role and Functions of the ABC Board and Staff
• Underage Drinking and Youth Access to Alcohol
• Regulation of Internet Sales of Alcohol
• Technical or Administrative Law Changes
• Local Option Communities*
*Note: Local Option recommendations are documented in
the report, but not included in SB 52. More
comprehensive discussion of Local Option laws is
needed in the future.
Ms. Brawley relayed that there were a couple of target
provisions in the bill on the topic of local options, but
there were no significant changes to local option laws.
9:48:13 AM
Ms. Brawley reported that slides 9,10, and 11 provided a
general overview of the reorganization of licenses. Most of
them already existed in law. They were either being
renamed, renumbered, or (in the case of manufacturing
licenses) being split into a manufacturing or production
license separate from a retail license allowing sales to
the public. Slide 9 also provided which endorsements would
be associated with each license.
Ms. Brawley moved to slide 10 which showed the retail level
licenses that were currently under population limits. The
bill proposed keeping them under population limits. The
wholesale and manufacturing licenses would be exempt from
population limits, as they were not serving the public. She
explained that population limits limited the number of
outlets selling alcohol to the public to protect public
health and safely, as there was an association between
population limits and negative impacts such as crime.
Ms. Brawley advanced to slide 11 which showed the
additional retail licenses. Most of them already existed in
statute and primarily served tourists. They were exempt
from population limits. The slide also showed the license
types that were proposed to be removed from statute and
replaced or converted into other license types to
streamline the system.
Representative Wool mentioned license types. He asked how
many types were currently in place and how many would be in
place if the bill were to pass. Ms. Brawley responded that
currently there were 16 license types. The number of
licenses would not materially change but the bill would
reorganize them.
Representative Wool thought the number was closer to 27. He
asked if the REPL [Restaurant/Eating Place License] was
population determined. He wondered if the local option was
currently in place or being proposed in the legislation.
Ms. Brawley returned to slide 10. There was a
Restaurant/Eating Place License (REPL) that was currently
under population limits. On slide 11 there was a reference
to public convenience. Currently in statute, there was a
process in place for an applicant to apply for an
additional restaurant license outside of population limits
as long as it served "public convenience" as determined by
the board. The proposal in the bill was to replace the
public convenience system with a system that allowed cities
to apply for additional restaurant licenses that were not
tied to an individual application. For example, a city
might want 5 more restaurant licenses that could be issued
in its jurisdiction. The bill also proposed a seasonal REPL
for tourism which would be outside of population limits and
available to smaller communities to operate on a seasonal
basis, similar to how some restaurants presently operated.
Representative Wool asked if Title 4 was unchanged from the
version in place a couple of years prior. He wondered if a
municipality had to apply for licenses in advance and could
only do so for a certain number of years. Once they
exhausted the supply they would have to wait for a period
before applying again. Senator Micciche responded that he
would be covering the information in the presentation. He
reported there was no wait period, application was on an
annual basis and a municipality could apply for as many
licenses as it wanted. He provided an example.
9:53:30 AM
Representative Knopp referred to population limits. He
wondered how population limit numbers were decided upon. He
referenced the changes in the number of breweries from 3000
to 12,000. Ms. Brawley responded that there was a formula
in statute that she would be reviewing in the upcoming
slides.
Ms. Brawley addressed slide 12 which highlighted some of
the licensing recommendations. Most of them would be
renumbered but not fundamentally changed. One proposal was
to split the existing brewery, winery, and distillery
licenses. Currently, a manufacturing license allowed for
limited retail sales through a tasting room. She reported
that the manufacturing licenses were not allowed retail
licenses such as a bar or a package store. The exception
was a brew pub license which she would address on the
following slide. The bill would split the license into 2
different ones. There would be a production license with
either a limited retail license with limited hours and
limited sales per customer or an existing retail license
with no production or sales limit could be obtained.
Ms. Brawley moved to slide 13. The exception would be the
brewpub. It was an attachment to a bar license. She
explained that instead of having 2 different types of
brewing operations, it would allow for a production license
and a retail license. Entities that already had full retail
licenses would be able to continue operations without
having a production limit on what they could make
currently. For example, existing brew pubs could only
produce so many gallons per year.
Representative Wool asked about the diagram on slide 12. He
noted that the slide listed brewery and REPL. He asked if a
current manufacturer who sold beer could get an REPL and
sell beer and wine while having the same stipulations as an
REPL. He wondered about an endorsement for a retail tasting
room. Ms. Brawley responded that a brewery could not
currently obtain a retail license. If an entity had a
brewery license, it could only do limited retail sales
because it was part of the existing license. They would not
be able to get a bar license, a package store license, or a
restaurant license. It was part of the original 3-tier
system which prevented manufacturers from having retail
licenses. The bill was proposing to change the system.
Representative Wool suggested breweries were already
selling retail. He wondered, under the proposed Title 4, if
breweries would be able to obtain an REPL. Ms. Brawley
responded affirmatively provided the breweries were under a
certain threshold of size. They had to make less than
300,000 barrels per year which was currently higher than
any of the manufacturers in the state.
Representative Wool asked if a brewery with a tasting room
could simultaneously have an REPL. Ms. Brawley replied that
the proposal in the bill would not prohibit it.
CSSB 52(FIN)am was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Johnston recessed the meeting to the call of the
chair. [The meeting never reconvened].
ADJOURNMENT
9:58:15 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 134 Public Testimony Rec'd by 032320.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 134 |
| SB 52 Title 4 Review Report.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2020 9:00:00 AM SFIN 2/11/2020 9:00:00 AM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Sectional Analysis v. E.A 03.02.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Public Testimony w Cover rec'd by 031330.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Letters of Support with cover sheet.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Sponsor Statement v. E.A 03.02.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Summary of Goals.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Title 4 Presentation HFIN 03.20.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Letter Support CHARR 031920.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 52 |