Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/10/1997 03:23 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 1997
3:23 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 67
"An Act relating, for purposes of eligibility for a permanent fund
dividend, to an absence from the state while on an unpaid
sabbatical under the longevity bonus program; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 67 OUT OF COMMITTEE
* SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 189
"An Act relating to sale of tobacco and tobacco products; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 159
"An Act relating to sale, gift, exchange, possession, and purchase
of tobacco and tobacco products; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 67
SHORT TITLE: LONGEVITY BONUS SABB'TCL:PFD ELIGIBILITY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) RYAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/15/97 66 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/15/97 67 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, LABOR & COMMERCE, FIN
02/25/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/25/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/27/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/27/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/01/97 894 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 5DP 2NR
04/01/97 894 (H) DP: JAMES, BERKOWITZ, HODGINS, DYSON,
04/01/97 894 (H) IVAN; NR: ELTON, VEZEY
04/01/97 894 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV)
04/09/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/09/97 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/10/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 189
SHORT TITLE: RESTRICT TOBACCO SALES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COWDERY, Austerman, Ryan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/12/97 640 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/12/97 640 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
04/03/97 922 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
04/03/97 922 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY
04/09/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/09/97 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/10/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 159
SHORT TITLE: TOBACCO PURCHASE, POSSESSION, SALE, ETC.
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT, Mulder, Kohring, Sanders, Ryan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/25/97 465 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/25/97 465 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
02/27/97 519 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SANDERS
03/27/97 871 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
03/27/97 872 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY
04/09/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/09/97 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/10/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
NANCY JONES, Director
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110460
Telephone: (907) 465-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 67.
CASEY SULLIVAN, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative John Cowdery
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3879
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SSHB 189.
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director
Income and Excise Audit Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0420
Telephone: (907) 465-2320
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions on SSHB 189 and
SSHB 159.
LOREN JONES, Director
Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110650
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0650
Telephone: (907) 465-2071
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions on SSHB 189 and
SSHB 159.
ERIC MYERS
2834 Knik Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 248-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 189 and against
SSHB 159.
DIANA KUHNS, Chief Operating Officer
Western Pacific Division
American Cancer Society
8111 Country Woods Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 344-9165
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 189 and against
SSHB 159.
PATRICIA SENNER, Executive Director
Alaska Nurses Association
257 East Third Avenue, Number 3
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-0827
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 189.
NANCY KUHN
2060 Amy Dyan
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 189 and against
SSHB 159.
JENNY MURRAY
P.O. Box 201200
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Read a statement on behalf of Dr. John
Petraitis in support of SSHB 189. She also
testified against SSHB 159.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SSHB 159.
BOBBY SCOTT
Jan's Distributing, Incorporated
521 Izembek Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 243-5267
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 159.
SYLVIA SCOTT
7400 East 17th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 333-3347
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 159.
SUSAN FRICHETTI
10336 Stewart
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Telephone: (907) 694-7944
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 159.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions on SSHB 159.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-37, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee to order at 3:23 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Ryan, Cowdery and
Hudson. Representative Kubina arrived at 4:09 p.m.
HB 67 - LONGEVITY BONUS SABB'TCL:PFD ELIGIBILITY
Number 0133
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would address HB 67, "An
Act relating, for purposes of eligibility for a permanent fund
dividend (PFD), to an absence from the state while on an unpaid
sabbatical under the longevity bonus program; and providing for an
effective date." He asked Representative Ryan to explain the
legislation.
Number 0154
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN, sponsor of HB 67, explained he introduced
the bill to correct an oversight. He said last year, people who
were eligible for the longevity bonus were allowed the opportunity
to take a sabbatical, once every five years, for purposes of
service in the Peace Corps, Congress, medical treatment, et cetera,
and for up to 220 days to settle the estate or the individual's
deceased parent, spouse's sibling, stepchild, et cetera, without
losing the eligibility for the longevity bonus. Representative
Ryan explained, "Previous to that time, if you lost your
eligibility once, that was it. You were forever off the program.
This way they could take this sabbatical and retain it." He noted
that while the person is outside of the state, they do not receive
their longevity bonus. At the same time, inadvertently, they could
be disqualified for their PFD check. He said he feels that since
a person would be giving up their longevity bonus for the period
they were outside the state, they shouldn't also be denied the
eligibility for the permanent fund check. Representative Ryan
said, "So what this bill basically does is just allowing an
exception for these folks - unpaid sabbatical leave under Alaska
47.45.035 or sabbatical under 43.23.005, subparagraph (H). And it
basically says you can take this once every five years - sabbatical
and you will give up your longevity bonus payments for the period
of time you're absent, but you won't also lose you eligibility for
the permanent fund. You retain your eligibility for your permanent
fund dividend check." He asked for the support of the committee.
Number 0355
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted there are two versions of the legislation,
HB 67, LS0331\A, which is the original version. There is also CSHB
67(STA), LS0331\E. He asked Representative Ryan to explain the
differences between the bills and what his wishes are.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN explained there was an amendment made in the
House State Affairs Committee to allow people over the age of 65 to
be able to utilize this mechanism. He said his intention is in the
original bill which allowed the people who were on a sabbatical to
participate. He stated he didn't want to make it all inclusive for
large groups of other people, but there were some members of the
State Affairs Committee who liked it. Representative Ryan pointed
out that the sabbatical, under AS 43.23.005(h), is what was added
in the State Affairs Committee. He said his preference is to adopt
the original version of the bill and disregard the committee
substitute from the State Affairs Committee.
Number 0474
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked if there is an intention of
prorating for time a person wasn't in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN explained in testimony given by Ms. Jones,
Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division, people could lose up to
as much as two years' eligibility and then would have to go through
the re-eligibility program to get their eligibility back. It
depends on what periods of time they took and the different years.
If a person was gone six months in two different years, they would
exceed the number of days they are allowed to be absent from the
state and they could lose eligibility for one year and the next
thinks that is unfair. What he is trying to do by introducing the
legislation is to provide an extra benefit for the people who have
been living in Alaska for a long time and have qualified for the
longevity bonus.
Number 0606
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained he would discuss what he perceives as
the differences between the original and the State Affairs version.
The State Affairs version allows anybody over the age of 65 to be
absent from the state, even though they're not eligible for the
longevity bonus. The bonus program eligibility has run out,
therefore, anybody that is over 65 could be absent for the state
for 12 months and still would qualify for their permanent fund.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted that wasn't his intention.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the original version is specifically
directed at people who are qualified the longevity bonus program.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN agreed.
Number 0707
NANCY JONES, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department
of Revenue, came before the committee. She explained HB 67 would
make the unpaid sabbatical an allowable absence for the purposes of
the Permanent Fund Dividend Division. Currently, a person can take
a longevity bonus sabbatical, that is enacted under new laws, and
come back and still be eligible to receive a longevity bonus
payment. Ms. Jones said the bill is proposing that even though
they are gone more than 180 days the state still pays them a
dividend even though they have been out for a whole year. She
stated, "The longevity program is maintaining only their
eligibility - it's not paying them, but this bill is proposing that
the permanent fund dividend program then pay them for that same
period of absence." Ms. Jones informed the committee that it is
currently possible for a person to take a sabbatical and still be
eligible for the PFD. The current rule about the absence is that
a person cannot exceed 180 days which is six months. So if a
person was planning and straddled two calendar years, they would
still be eligible to receive a PFD. She said, "We are concerned
right now that we are, again, opening up an allowable absence for
a very select few people because there is no more requirements.
The longevity program is not allowing more people to become
eligible. It's only maintaining the eligibility of the people
currently on." She noted that last year 29,733 people received at
least one longevity bonus payment. Ms. Jones informed the
committee that the State Affairs Committee substitute said that
anyone who was qualified for the longevity bonus program on January
1, 1997, would be eligible to take a sabbatical and still be
eligible for the dividend.
MS. JONES said, "We at PFD have an alternative. We think that we
can work out eligibility requirements for people who are out on a
sabbatical, either by regulation or a statute, which would allow
the disqualification of a double year that Representative Ryan
alluded to. If a person does stay out from January through
December 31, of a dividend qualifying year, they will not only get
the next year dividend, but since they weren't back before the new
qualifying year then they would miss another year. So we think
that we can work out, in regulation, where a person wouldn't lose
two dividends. But we feel that the program should, right now, be
on equal footing. Neither program pays an individual for being
outside of Alaska for traveling in excess of 180 days and right now
they're equal. This bill is proposing to then -- not be eligible
to get a longevity payment, but then receive a dividend."
Number 0935
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if his understanding is correct in
saying that Ms. Jones' statement about changing regulation would
accomplish the same thing.
MS. JONES indicated that isn't correct. They could accomplish a
regulation that would not allow a person to be in jeopardy of
losing two dividends. They still wouldn't get paid for the year
they were gone, but when they come back they still would be
eligible to receive the next dividend.
Number 1000
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the bill doesn't accomplish that.
MS. JONES said it doesn't. It would pay them in a qualifying year
while they were gone.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified they would lose it the year they were
gone, but not lose it the next year.
MS. JONES answered in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Jones if she could come up with an
amendment to the bill that would do that rather than spending time
writing regulations.
MS. JONES indicated she could.
Number 1021
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON referred to his interpretation of the State
Affairs Committee version of the bill and said, "It sounds to me
like under the age that individual who was qualified on January 1,
1997, received longevity bonus payments - no longer qualified, is
eligible for this sabbatical purposes. But I'm 65 in December, so
I would not be. Is that correct?"
MS. JONES indicated Representative Hudson is correct. She said if
he was not on the roles for the longevity program as of January 1,
1997, then this wouldn't apply.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he is trying to figure out what kind of
equity that provides. He said, "It clearly states that if they
turn 65 on January 1, 1997, but they don't get the longevity bonus
because that program went out of style, so for me at any rate - any
bill that I sign onto I want to make certain that all people are
treated equal. And for that reason, I certainly wouldn't support
this."
Number 1119
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked how many people have taken the
sabbatical.
MS. JONES indicated she didn't have those figures with her.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked Ms. Jones if she knows how many people
had to forfeit their PFDs because they did make long trips out of
the state.
MS. JONES said didn't have the figures with her.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked her if she knows how many people may have
lost their longevity bonus because they made trips out of Alaska.
MS. JONES responded she didn't know. She stated that there are
strict requirements that a person would start to lose their
eligibility if they were gone more than 30 days. If a person was
gone 30 days, they wouldn't get a check for that time. They could
come back and still be eligible. She noted since they have been
ratcheting down the program, any infraction that a person commits
totally makes it void that you cannot become eligible again. She
said she believes the maximum is 90 days in that if a person is
absent in excess of 90 days, they would be totally out of the
program.
Number 1259
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said Ms. Jones mentioned that the department
could develop regulations. He asked if the department has started
drafting any regulations.
MS. JONES said they are waiting to see what transpires with the
legislation.
Number 1271
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the state has provided for the
spouses of our congressional delegation to receive their dividend.
He said he knows there was some court action that essentially
denied them over a number of years. He asked if the legislation
would be a vehicle to do that.
MS. JONES explained it is addressed in HB 2, which is currently in
the Senate.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Jones how long it would take her to
draft an amendment that would allow the loss of one year's PFD
while on sabbatical, but not the other year which is the real loss.
In other words, a double penalty.
MS. JONES indicated it wouldn't take her very long to draft an
amendment.
Number 1349
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said it is quid pro quo. You give up the
longevity bonus way of life, but you retain your eligibility for
the permanent fund. You only do it once every five years. He said
he doesn't believe this will incur a great financial hardship for
the state for this particular class of people. He said if we want
to get into the political philosophy of giving particular groups of
people special privileges, then we can run rampant with that.
Representative Ryan stated the purpose of the bill is to save the
longevity bonus, but at the same time make (indisc.).
Number 1400
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was anyone else to testify on the
bill. There being no further witnesses, he closed the public
hearing on HB 67.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said HB 67 would exempt any loss of any PFDs to
any longevity bonus member's eligibility who took a sabbatical. He
said after this problem was discovered, he sent a letter to his
constituents currently receiving the longevity bonus to warn them
of the potentiality of the possible losses up to two years of
permanent fund eligibility. Chairman Rokeberg said, "I think the
point of the State Affairs issue, and the point that we were trying
to avoid is not to have a double hit. If somebody wants to leave
the state for a year, then they're not here. So perhaps you
(indisc.) then they should give up the permanent fund dividend, but
they shouldn't be penalized twice when they come back off their
sabbatical. That's one argument and that's what Ms. Jones was
talking about - that fix. So then you have this other one from
State Affairs which is completely out of hand, I think, I don't
care for it at all, which is putting people who are not even in the
longevity bonus program on some different special footing. I
totally reject that, but I'm concerned that your bill exempts any
loss of the permanent fund vis-a-vis, the fact that they wouldn't
get it for one year. But I mean that's a judgement call."
Number 1493
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted $250 a month for 12 months is $3,000 of
general fund money. He said, "$1,100 or $1,200 out of permanent
fund money, if it weren't paid to the recipient, would remain in
the earnings reserve. It's a pretty good trade, three to one and
we're getting three times as much general fund money back to giving
out one-third to the permanent fund. It seems to me that's pretty
good business."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he will fully support the original
version of HB 67. He noted it has a Finance Committee referral
Number 1607
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt HB 67. Hearing no
objection, HB 67 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 67 out of committee
with individual recommendations and with the accompanying zero
fiscal notes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was an objection to moving HB 67.
Hearing none, HB 67 moved out of the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee.
SSHB 189 - RESTRICT TOBACCO SALES
Number 1676
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next order of business would be
SSHB 189, "An Act relating to sale of tobacco and tobacco products;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 1712
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved that the committee adopt SSHB 189,
Version E, dated 03/27/97, be adopted. Hearing no objection, SSHB
189 was before the committee.
CASEY SULLIVAN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative John Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, came before
the committee to explain SSHB 189. He said the bill limits public
access to tobacco products in retail premisses. As it is currently
written, one can sell and purchase tobacco products on a licensed
liquor premise from retailers with a tobacco endorsement or by
licensed vending machines. Mr. Sullivan said the bill adds a
section where it allows only the sales clerk to have access to any
tobacco product prior to sale. This will ban self-service tobacco
displays found today in many stores and will put more
responsibility on retail employees who sell the tobacco products.
He stated Americans for Nonsmoker Rights have noted that banning
self-service displays may reduce youth access in two ways. One,
youth may be less likely to attempt purchase when they have to
request tobacco from a store employee and show identification,
rather than just handing the product to the clerk; and two, the
absence of display makes it more difficult to shoplift tobacco
products. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that approximately 171
different cities have adopted similar laws to restrict this public
access. He urged support for the legislation.
Number 1796
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN referred to page 2, line 5, of the legislation,
which relates to sales by vending machines, and asked how sales by
vending machines will be controlled.
MR. SULLIVAN explained currently in statute, AS 11.76.100 (B),
there are already stipulations that pertain specifically to vending
machines. He explained subsection (B) says a vending machine must
be located in a place that is directly and continually supervised
by a person employed on the licensed premise during the hours the
vending machine is accessible to the public.
Number 1846
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said the tobacco and health issue has been
a hot issue over the last couple of years. He said another piece
of legislation that pertains to tobacco taxes may not work. By
raising the cigarette tax to $1 per pack, he doesn't believe it
will keep our youth from smoking. Representative Cowdery informed
the committee he had smoked for 40 years and quit.
Number 1941
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN referred to the amount of money being spent to
combat drugs and said it has driven the price up very high. Yet we
find drug use by our youth population is at an all time high. If
they can afford the cost of drugs, he would seriously doubt that $1
per pack tax on cigarettes would have any impact whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Sullivan, "Why did you not provide for
the provision for existing freestanding, for example, or separate
premised tobacco shops to be able to sell tobacco products."
MR. SULLIVAN stated it is still covered statutorily under AS
43.70.075. He said when retail premises apply for a business
license, they have to also obtain a tobacco endorsement.
Essentially, any retail premise can sell tobacco products with a
tobacco endorsement. Mr. Sullivan read from AS 43.70.075, "Unless
a person has a business license endorsement issued under this
section, a person may not sell cigarettes, cigars, tobacco, or
products containing tobacco as a retailer. An endorsement required
under this section is in addition to any other license or
endorsement required by law."
Number 2046
MR. SULLIVAN explained that AS 43.50.010 discusses the actual
license. He read, "A person may not sell, purchase, possess, or
acquire cigarettes as a manufacturer, distributor, direct-buying
retailer, vending machine operator, or buyer without a license.
(b) The department, upon application and payment of the fee, shall
issue a license to each manufacturer, distributor, direct-buying
retailer, vending machine operator, or buyer." Mr. Sullivan
explained that the definition section goes on to discuss those
areas which would probably include tobacco shops. He said the bill
limits, in one area, the public access to tobacco products and
retail premises. The bill would ban self-service tobacco displays
in retail premises, and to buy tobacco would have to be done
through the sales clerk. He read from SSHB 189, "the sales occurs
in a manner that allows only the sales clerk to have access to the
cigarettes, cigars, tobacco, or product containing tobacco prior to
sale."
Number 2198
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there are provisions in the bill
relating to selling tobacco products in the bush where people may
only be supplied by special mail deliveries.
MR. SULLIVAN indicated he didn't understand the question.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how a person would buy cigarettes if they
live out in Anaktuvuk Pass.
MR. SULLIVAN explained the legislation doesn't address provisions
relating to mail order. He said in the bush, people go to the
general store and at those stores, a buyer would have to go through
the employee.
Number 2226
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, "Rural areas that didn't have licensed
-- that were dry areas wherever they were sold, they would have to
be sold through a licensed premises out of (indisc.) and the person
selling would be responsible to assure that the age of the buyer is
of legal age." He said he doesn't know what could keep someone
from shipping something in even in dry areas.
Number 2267
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON questioned how much annual revenue is
received from tobacco taxes.
Number 2281
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director, Income and Excise Audit Division
Department of Revenue, responded the annual revenue is $15 million.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what the annual estimate of the cost of
current penalties that would be imposed upon dealers for selling to
youth. He said he would like to know what the current law produced
in the way of penalty receipts to the state.
Number 2319
LOREN JONES, Director, Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse,
Department of Health and Social Services, came before the
committee. He said his division has been asking that same question
as they have reviewed the tobacco legislation in terms of their
enforcement. Mr. Jones said they haven't found any records where
any tobacco seller or vendor has ever been convicted of selling to
a minor under the age of 19. He pointed out that in the
restrictions that are placed on a license, either through AS 43.50
or AS 43.70, it requires a conviction in court before they can act.
He said they haven't found any records where any vendor has ever
been convicted of selling to a minor. Mr. Jones said the revenues
received by the state for the penalties for sale are zero.
Number 2349
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if he is saying that the law is on the
books, but it's not enforced.
MR. JONES explained there are many kids that have been arrested and
fined in court for possession. No seller, to his knowledge, has
ever been convicted in court for selling to a minor.
REPRESENTATATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Jones what his personal opinion
is why a seller has never been convicted.
MR. JONES said he believes it is twofold. It is a resource issue.
He said, "If you are a local police department and you're required
to enforce this, if you are out of school or driving down the
street or you arrest the minor for other violations and you see the
person with tobacco, you have observed the crime being committed.
That youth possesses. In order to determine whether a vendor has
sold requires some effort on the police department and they have
many other priorities and low resources. The difference with
alcohol beverages is you have the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC)
Board that has enforcement officers and they have powers. They can
go in and observe. They can watch liquor stores." Mr. Jones
explained that currently the enforcement of the tobacco ordinance
is left up to local police departments and they have many many
other priorities, including liquor violations, drunk driving,
domestic assaults. He said while some legislation talks about
enforcing the increase of penalties, nobody is willing to say, "Pay
overtime at the local police departments so they would actually do
it." He said the fines against the vendors aren't high enough and
there is no real entity in the state that is charged with enforcing
the tobacco laws except local police. Mr. Jones explained the
second place where that comes in is when a liquor license holder
pays their license fee to the state, it is refunded back to the
municipality in which it was gained. He referred to the people who
hold liquor licenses in Anchorage and said when they pay their
biannual fees, that money is refunded back to the municipality of
Anchorage. If they do not enforce local liquor laws, the
commissioner of the Department of Revenue can withhold that revenue
sharing money. That is an enticement for the local police
department to enforce liquor laws.
TAPE 97-37, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, "We, in our -- I think we imposed or
suggested a $300 fine. So if we made that $20,000 or $50,000, it
probably would have no effect?"
MR. JONES said if half of that fine were to be given to the local
police departments, they would probably go after it. He noted one
of the ways that some of the drug laws are enforced is through the
forfeiture of assets. If a dealer is convicted, you can take their
car or their boat. When police departments get some of that money,
that is an inducement. Mr. Jones said there may be other ways to
transfer some of the revenues from tobacco tax increases back to
local communities to encourage them to enforce. Mr. Jones said the
department feels that enforcement is one element to the package and
they don't think it's a substitute for the increase in the tax,
especially if the enforcement is simply increasing the penalties of
things that are never enforced. He said his department would much
rather see the tax and some enhanced enforcement.
Number 0099
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what the department's official position is
on the bill.
MR. JONES referred to the original version of the bill and said
they were opposed to it because you could only sell in a liquor
store. He said they currently don't have an official position on
the sponsor substitute.
Number 0119
ERIC MYERS testified via teleconference from Anchorage on behalf of
himself. He stated he would like to commend Representative Cowdery
for his sincere interest in the issue. Mr. Myers said
Representative Cowdery's proposal, in context, would actually be a
very complimentary piece of legislation to the overall effort,
including education efforts, youth access restrictions, enforcement
and increases in the tobacco tax. Mr. Myers said, "One thing we
need to keep in mind here with this - even with the proposal such
as this, the expectations need to be limited -- investigations --
very aggressive compliance with vendors has shown that unless you
achieve compliance rates, which are professionally unattainable in
the order of about 85 percent, you don't see substantial (indisc.)
of teen smoking." Mr. Myers stated enforcement is really the
issue. You can create all sorts of laws, there are lots on the
books, but they aren't being enforced. He said he would encourage
the committee to specifically ask representatives of the tobacco
industry for their commitment and state publicly their support for
this particular piece of legislation. He informed the committee of
a New York Times story titled, "Why the Tobacco Industry Found
Taxes Hazardous to its Health," and said the real thing the tobacco
industry fears the most is tobacco taxes.
Number 0266
DIANA KUHNS, Chief Operating Officer, Western Pacific Division,
American Cancer Society, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. She applauded Representative Cowdery for introducing
the legislation and offered support of the American Cancer Society.
Ms. Kuhns explained that at this point in time, there isn't much
data available regarding the impact of tobacco consumption in
relationship to the legislation. She said her organization
supports the bill because they believe it would reduce youth access
to tobacco and would help separate tobacco into an adult product
class. Ms. Kuhns offered an invitation to sit down with
Representative Cowdery and share information and scientific data
which does prove that taxation is an effective measure in reducing
youth consumption of tobacco.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he would be happy to discuss the issue
further with Ms. Kuhns.
Number 0351
PATRICIA SENNER, Executive Director, Alaska Nurses Association,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She said in addition
to being a registered nurse, she is the mother of three children.
She stated the Alaska Nurses Association is in favor of SSHB 189
because it reduces the opportunity for teenagers to purchase
tobacco products by limiting the types of locations at which they
are sold. Ms. Senner said she has been upset at a local grocery
store which is frequented, at lunch time, by high school students.
Cigarettes in that grocery store are located right in the front
main isle where they're easily accessible. She said the grocery
store also owns a tobacco shop located right down the street from
two schools. As soon as the shop opened, they put Joe Camel in
neon lights in the front window. She said her organization
believes that a tobacco tax is probably the best method of reducing
youth consumption of tobacco products, but they also want to make
it more difficult for youths to access tobacco products sold in
stores.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the Joe Camel sign is still in the
window.
MS. SENNER indicated it is still up and has been there since the
day they opened. She said, "Carrs said they were trying to
discourage youth from taking - buying cigarettes from their grocery
store, but they left the cigarettes right in the front isle right
behind the cashier (indisc.) and then they put Joe Camel up in the
front window (indisc.)."
Number 0492
NANCY KUHN testified via teleconference from Fairbanks on behalf of
herself. She informed the committee members she is the mother of
four. Ms. Kuhn explained that currently there are no United States
laws nor proposed laws that are going to limit tobacco sales
(indisc.) out to the liquor outlets. There is no scientific data
of how this measure will impact underage consumption of tobacco.
There are currently no state laws, although there are some proposed
in Vermont and Minnesota, that would ban self-service displays of
tobacco. Approximately 170 local jurisdictions across 11 states
presently have ordinances that ban self-service displays of
tobacco. She said the local ordinances are relatively recent and
there isn't any available data regarding their impact on tobacco
consumption by youth. Ms. Kuhn informed the committee there is a
1995 study by the Center for Behavioral and Community Health of San
Diego State University which concludes stores that have allowed
customers access to tobacco are more likely to sell tobacco to
minors than stores that did not. They attribute this to the fact
that the simple act of having to request the product reinforces the
special age restrictions to the clerk. The authors of the
California study also concluded that the large restricting self-
service displays of tobacco will reinforce the message that tobacco
products are not in the same class as candy, soda pop and potato
chips. Ms. Kuhn said although she supports HB 189, she would also
like to take a firm stand in saying that increasing the price of
tobacco, through increased taxation, is a proven and effective
method to reduce youth consumption of tobacco. She said it is
recommended by the Surgeon General, the General Accounting Office
of the United States and the American Medical Association and
numerous health organizations. Ms. Kuhn said she would hope that
the legislature would be sure that any program that is intended to
limit tobacco use by children would include a tobacco tax and it
would be center piece of any decision. She thanked the committee
for listening.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG informed Ms. Kuhn that the Senate had passed
tobacco tax legislation earlier that day.
Number 0657
JENNY MURRAY, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She read
the following testimony into the record on behalf of Dr. John
Petraitis.
"My name is Dr. John Petraitis. I live at 30319 List Circle in
Eagle River. I'm an assistant professor at University of Alaska,
Anchorage, and I have studied ways of curving youth addiction to
tobacco products. Unfortunately, I could not be here today, so I
have asked Jenny Murray to share with you scientific evidence that
applies to HB 189. That bill was written to limit youth their
access to tobacco, any (indisc.) a bill seeks to reduce the supply
of tobacco to youth in hopes of limiting the consumption of tobacco
by youth.
"Currently there are no federal or state laws comparable to HB 189.
However, approximately 170 localities across the country have
ordinances which ban self-service displays of tobacco.
Unfortunately, these local ordinances are relatively recent and
there are no available data regarding their impact on tobacco
consumption rate by youth. There is, however, one published study
that looks to link between self-service displays and sales rates to
youth. That study concluded that stores with self-service displays
of tobacco are more likely to sell tobacco to minors than stores
that kept tobacco behind the counter. Unfortunately, that study
only looked at the sales of tobacco to youth, something that was
not eliminated in either type of store, yet those stores with only
behind the counter displays. The study did not look at consumption
of tobacco by youth, therefore, there are no scientific conclusions
that can be drawn about effects of HB 189 on youth consumption.
However, clear scientific conclusions can be drawn about the link
between the price of tobacco and youth consumption. Study after
study suggests that increasing the price of tobacco through
increased taxation is likely to have a stronger more immediate and
a more long-lasting effect on tobacco consumption by youth.
"In conclusion, HB 189 might modestly reduce some sales of tobacco
to youth, but by contrast, increasing tobacco taxes will eliminate
much of the demand and consumption of tobacco by youth. This is
why the U.S. Surgeon General and the American Medical Association
have concluded that any serious policies to curve youth smoking
must include tobacco tax increases as a center piece. Nothing -
nothing - nothing the Alaska legislature will do is likely to have
the same effect on youth smoking, therefore, the (indisc.) suggests
that HB 189 might be a useful addition to tobacco tax increases,
but it would make a poor substitute. Thank you very much for your
time."
Number 0770
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he would like to speak to the sponsor about
clarifying amendments. He referred to legislation introduced the
previous session called the loose cigarette bill. He asked
Representative Cowdery if he would have an objection to adding that
to his bill. It wouldn't allow single cigarettes to be sold.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he would consider that a friendly
amendment.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he has some concerns about the clarity
of the legislation, the way it is structured and the mailing to
rural areas. He said the way he understands the bill, it would
prohibit the sales via mail.
Number 0856
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY explained he would be open to any amendments
that would be effective regarding that issue. However, he has
questions as to how can you stop people from ordering cigarettes.
He said he believes that would be difficult to enforce.
Number 0897
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN referred to stores giving incentives to get one
of their cards to cash checks, et cetera. People are asked at the
register if they have a card and they put it through the scanner.
That information is kept in a computer and is sold to companies
that issue coupons, et cetera. So they only send you the coupons
that reflect the items which they manufacture that you purchase.
This saves them a lot of money. Representative Ryan said it would
be very easy for people who issue drivers licenses to put a bar
code on the license that would verify the age of the person.
People in the stores could scan the bar code and tell for sure
whether the person was of age. It would also keep a record of who
bought what.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated it is his intention to hold the bill
over so that he can consult with the sponsor. He referred to the
first section of the bill and said language is being deleted that
says, "selling or giving tobacco to a minor." Chairman Rokeberg
said by deleting the words, "giving tobacco to a minor," it takes
away the ability to punish anybody for actually giving tobacco
away. He asked what the intention was.
MR. SULLIVAN explained it was a grammatical and stylistic change by
the drafter. He said he wasn't provided with an explanation of the
change.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the SSHB 189 would be held over for further
consultation with the bill sponsor.
Number 1044
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called for a brief at-ease at 4:39 p.m. He
called the meeting back to order at 4:45 p.m.
SSHB 159 - TOBACCO PURCHASE, POSSESSION, SALE, ETC.
Number 1071
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next order of business would be
SSHB 159, "An Act relating to sale, gift, exchange, possession, and
purchase of tobacco and tobacco products; and providing for an
effective date," sponsored by Representative Pete Kott. He
informed the committee there is a committee substitute for the
sponsor substitute, Version K. He said he would entertain a motion
to adopt the committee substitute.
Number 1096
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY moved to adopt CSSSHB 159(L&C), Version K.
Hearing no objection, CSSSHB 159(L&C), Version K, LS0287/K, Ford,
04/09/97, was adopted.
Number 1113
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT came before the committee to explain
differences between SSHB 159 and CSSSHB 159(L&C). He said the age
is being changed from 19 to 21. He noted the changes occur several
times in the legislation. Representative Kott said Alaska has a
serious problem with minors consuming tobacco products. The
legislation is an attempt to help that problem. Representative
Kott stated it is his understanding that 21 percent of high school
students smoke some form of tobacco product. He noted that across
the United States it is even a wider problem with over a million
kids that are starting to use tobacco products.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT informed the committee that there are currently
state laws that restricts youth from purchasing tobacco products if
they're under the age of 19. He said based on the numbers, 21
percent of high school students smoke. The current laws aren't
working and the legislation is a tool that might help ridge the
problem.
Number 1210
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the committee substitute for the sponsor
substitute puts more esteem into the laws that are designed to
protect the kids from smoking. It raises the age of consent to 21
and all people under 21 who purchase or possess tobacco products
are subject to punishment. Punishment for the first offense is
$250, $500 for the second offense and $1,000 for the third offense.
Second, it makes it illegal to sell or give a tobacco product to a
minor under the age of 21. The penalties are $250 for the first
offense, $500 for the second offense and $1,000 for the third
offense. The legislation also requires the merchants to check
identification of people who they have reason to believe that they
are under the age of 27. He indicated this would be added
protection. The merchants will tell their employees about this law
and they will have their employees sign a statement saying they
know about the law.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained the legislation also contains some
strict guidelines on the governing of sale of tobacco by vending
machines. It is designed to ensure that persons under 21 will not
be able to purchase tobacco from vending machines.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT informed the committee members there is a
provision in the bill that encourages municipal enforcement by
requiring the court to separately account for fines that are
assessed based on a conviction. The language in the legislation
offers some opportunity to provide some of the monies collected
back to the municipal law enforcement authorities. The legislature
can appropriate money back to law enforcement for enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated there is a provision that after a couple
of times of being delinquent, a merchant could lose their license
to sell tobacco products.
Number 1444
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated that some clerks are under 21 and
handle tobacco products.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he doesn't believe that was addressed in
the bill. He said it would be prudent, on behalf of the individual
merchant, to hire someone that is of age.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted there are high school students who work
at gas stations, et cetera. He said he was wondering if they would
be able to sell tobacco.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he doesn't want anybody under 21 to be
able to sell tobacco products. He noted existing law doesn't cover
that either.
Number 1520
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he would think that if you can't possess
cigarettes, you couldn't sell them. He asked if marijuana should
be included.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he wouldn't want to venture into that area
since it is already an illegal substance.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked how the law would work on a military
base.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated the similar procedures would
implemented that were used when the drinking age was raised.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA questioned how mail orders would be
controlled.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he would suspect that since a person is
required to be of age to purchase tobacco, if they ordered tobacco
and weren't 21, they would be in violation. He said he would think
the wholesalers would come up with a mechanism either through
sending a driver's license or some kind of confirmation to work out
those details.
Number 1616
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked, "If we can't get anybody to enforce
our laws at 19, how are we going to get them to enforce them at
21?"
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said there is a misconception that the laws
aren't being enforced. He informed the committee members it is his
understanding that last year in Juneau and Anchorage there were
approximately 1,000 citations issued for underage smoking. It's
not like it's not being done, but certainly it's a lot more
widespread than the fines would indicate. Representative Kott said
with the provision that would suggest that the legislature can look
at reimbursing or submitting to the municipalities or boroughs a
portion of the fines collected, it may act as an incentive.
Number 1676
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked "Representative Kott, would you entertain
taking some of the recommendations that were previously said to put
up the level of the fines and give those to the municipalities in
which the enforcement took place, and then to withhold the business
license fees if the municipalities don't feel they want to
participate in the enforcement of this law? It would seem to me
that if we had an incentive that would help them cover their costs,
we might get a lot more cooperation out of them rather than to just
have them ignored because it was said they have a lot more serious
things - rape, robberies, drive-by shootings, burglaries and they -
- probably this is way down the priority list because it takes
manpower and expense and they can't justify it with the magnitude
of other things, but if they were going to get $500 every time they
stopped a kid with a cigarette in his hand it would pay off."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he wouldn't have a problem reimbursing
municipal officials the entire amount if that could be done. He
said he believes the only way that could be done is to provide
legislative intent into the statute itself.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he would like to note some suggested
changes. He directed the committee to page 4, line 4, which read,
"$100 for a first offense within a two-year period,..." He said to
be consistent with the other areas of the bill he would recommend
that the amount be changed to $250. Representative Kott said
another change he would like to suggest is on page 3, line 2,
delete, "for consumption on the licensed premises,". The reason
for the deletion is that there is no provision in the bill that
would afford vending machines to be located in package stores. He
said it conforms to existing law. He noted there was a concern by
the Division of Licensing in that if a license is revoked, there
shouldn't be the ability to go back to the division under a
different name and purchase another license.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested Representative Kott prepare an
amendment in writing.
Number 1936
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to Version H of SSHB 159 and read page
2, lines 30 and 31, "The sale of a tobacco product through a
vending machine is permitted if the vending machine is located in
a place that is open to the public but to which a person under the
age of 21 is denied access;". He questioned what these places are
besides licensed premises. He asked what places would they be
denied access if they weren't licensed premise.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated it could be bars.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to using the age of 27 of a perspective
purchaser to ask for identification and asked if that is a federal
requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated it is a federal requirement.
Number 2060
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he has concern about what he considers the
fiscal note to the private sector. He said the cost to employers
to have to inform their sales clerks, signing forms and keeping the
records for a period of time might seem minor, but it can start
adding up, particularly with large retail organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he has weighed all the evidence and it is
his belief the positives that would be obtained from the bill
certainly outweigh the negatives. There will be a small amount of
details involved by the private sector. He said he would suspect
that what would happen is that there would be some kind of a stamp
placed on the back of an employment application which is generally
kept until an employee terminates. He said he doesn't think an
undo amount of burden will be created.
Number 2190
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said if there is an added burden to the
retailers, the retailer will adjust the price of the product to
take care of that. He said that was the answer he got regarding
similar legislation he had introduced.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he believes this is really an added
protection for the employer in case there is a revocation hearing
involved. If he/she has it on file, it will be a lot easier to go
before the board under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). He
said it may be only a penny per application.
Number 2285
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Basically the fiscal note as it relates to
the fact that the court has to forward to the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development a record of all this and then the
court additionally has to separate the monies and the fines in the
accounts. In your bill, the money goes into the general fund with
a potential appropriation by the legislature and local law
enforcement here, which is like a permissive indirect dedicated
fund. I mean in light of the testimony you heard today, I think
this committee would like you to look into -- I think this
committee would like to see some kind of incentive to the
municipalities to enforce the law with that direct portion, and as
we mentioned the ABC beverage prototype. You might want to look at
that."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said they could certainly look at that. He
said the fiscal note is a little over $8,000. The court,
currently, forwards information. He said what they are being asked
to do is separate the information within their computer system.
They currently don't have that ability. There will have to be a
one-quarter time person to determine what portion of the revenue is
then sent to the Department of Commerce and Economic Development
comes from fines. He noted they are in the process of updating
their computer system. The software package was supposed to have
been on-line and if it were on-line, there wouldn't be a fiscal
note at all.
Number 2451
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said by allowing the municipality or whomever
to keep the fine, the court system can levy their charges or costs
against the individual...
TAPE 97-38, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN continued, "This would be a wonderful
opportunity to really add some teeth to these people and for
practical purposes, eradicate juveniles from having tobacco."
Number 0040
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted the purpose of the bill is to curve
tobacco use among youth and not to raise revenue. Hopefully, with
the fines in the bill, there will be considerations before someone
attempts to purchase tobacco. He said with attempting to purchase
there would be a fine. A person can currently try to purchase
tobacco and there is no law against it.
Number 0094
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Representative Kott to review the loose
cigarette bill that he had introduced the previous session.
Chairman Rokeberg indicated the committee would take testimony on
Representative Kott's bill.
Number 0183
BOBBY SCOTT, Jan's Distributing, Incorporated, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He indicated his business is a
wholesale business that does business throughout the state of
Alaska. Mr. Scott said he would like to commend Representatives
Kott, Ryan, Mulder, Kohring and Sanders for their effort to put a
bill forward to help prevent youth from getting access to and using
tobacco products. He explained his business has a lot of walk-in
customers that come into their shop and they are asked for
identification when they come in. Mr. Scott informed the committee
they service between 300 and 400 customers. In speaking with his
customers, they indicated they are in favor of tougher laws as
opposed to an increased tax, thus it would eliminate a lot of theft
that they are currently dealing with such as robbing stores. He
thanked the committee for listening.
Number 0314
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY referred to name brand cigarettes and
generic brand and asked Mr. Scott if he has an idea of what our
youth predominately buys.
MR. SCOTT said when he attended other meetings at the schools, he
noticed a majority are smoking brand name cigarettes. He said with
an increased tax, a lot of them will probably switch to generic
brands as opposed to quitting.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY questioned what the price differences are.
MR. SCOTT replied that it is approximately $1 difference per pack.
Number 0427
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what their geographic boundary is for
wholesale.
MR. SCOTT informed the committee they are in Anchorage, Eagle
River, Wasilla, Talkeetna, Fairbanks and down the peninsula. He
noted they also have a bush site that does ship out to other parts
of the state of Alaska, including the rural areas.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there is any way to check the age of the
people who order by mail.
MR. SCOTT said other than with a credit card, he doesn't know of
any other way.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if it would be possible that someone would
make a mail order and not be of age.
MR. SCOTT said that could very well happen. He said when the
tobacco shops opened, kids were making orders using their cat's
name and were getting cigarettes sent to them.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out Mr. Scott said he was a wholesaler
and asked if the people he deals with has to have some kind of a
license or endorsement.
MR. SCOTT said his business basically sells to retail outlets such
as store chains, independent mom and pop gas stations, et cetera.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if his business also sells to the
general public.
MR. SCOTT indicated that they do.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned what licenses or endorsements his
business holds.
MR. SCOTT said he believes a business license and a tobacco
license.
Number 0527
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked what the size is of the normal mail
order relating to tobacco.
MR. SCOTT indicated he didn't have that information with him. He
noted they do not sell individual packages, all of their sales are
basically by the carton.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he would like an idea of the minimum
amount they sell by mail order.
MR. SCOTT indicated he would get the information. He noted it
would depend on if they are shipping out to a bush grocery store or
to a customer who is at home.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted he would also like to know if it is
one brand or if it is a mixture of brands.
Number 0685
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Mr. Scott if he distributes as a
wholesaler only to retailers or do they have a retail license as
well.
MR. SCOTT said they are strictly wholesale.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said if a retailer has a computer system and
someone e-mailed them a request to purchase a case of cigarettes
and provided their name, address, et cetera. They would also have
to indicate age. He asked if there is currently a way to verify
age via e-mail.
MR. SCOTT said he doesn't believe there is any way to do that. He
referred to there being pornography on the Internet and said there
is no way to actually guard against anybody being under 21.
Number 0765
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if there is any way to keep someone
from ordering cigarettes at a lower price from a source in the
Lower 48.
MR. SCOTT said earlier in the month he had faxed to the committee
a copy of an address he got off the Internet that was actually
selling cartons of Marlboros for around $13 or $14 a carton to your
door.
Number 0828
SYLVIA SCOTT testified via teleconference from Anchorage on behalf
of herself. She informed the committee she has four children and
four grandchildren and none of them smoke. They don't smoke
because she taught them right from wrong regarding smoking. Ms.
Scott noted that even though their father did smoke, he has since
quit. She said SSHB 159 will receive a positive and praising
response from a large group of people, including herself. Ms.
Scott said a lot of people have pushed for an increase in the
tobacco tax as a way to stop children from smoking or using
tobacco. She said although she feels it won't work, tougher laws
would be a better way and HB 159 covers (indisc.) laws against
youth consumption and possession. Ms. Scott relayed a situation
she encountered where she came out of a store and there were three
policemen talking to some kids. She said she walked down to see if
they were giving them tickets for smoking. When she asked what the
tickets were for, the policemen said it was because of having
skateboards on the sidewalk. She said we need to toughen our laws
and get our priorities where they should be. Ms. Scott indicated
she has spoke to teens regarding the increased cigarette tax and
they said it wouldn't bother them, they'll still get them.
Number 0992
SUSAN FRICHETTI testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
support of SSHB 159. She said she believes this is the direction
that the legislature should be heading if we're really going to
discourage tobacco use amongst our kids. Ms. Frichetti said she
also believes that the legislation will help with enforcing the
laws and will prevent a black market sales. It would be wise to
pass the bill in order to help solve the issue of kids starting to
smoke. She said she thinks retailers would be able to absorb the
guidelines in the legislation. The bill would be viewed as a
positive action.
Number 1051
NANCY KUHN was next to testify via teleconference from Fairbanks.
She noted she has four children. Ms. Kuhn said she thinks that
SSHB 159 would be a step backwards in the fight against teen
tobacco and so she opposes the bill. Kids smoke to rebel, to be
cool and to be in with their peers. The rebellion is more
frightening if you make them criminals. Teenage smoking is a
health problem and not a criminal problem. Kids should not be made
criminals because of smoking. The responsibility to stop the sale
of tobacco to children should be with the adults who sell it,
particularly those who have a financial interest in the tobacco
sales. She thanked the committee members for their time and for
the interest in considering the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Ms. Kuhn if she thinks traffic fines
stop speeders. He said that is also a penalty. We now have
existing laws that says teenagers can't get alcohol, but a few
still get it.
Number 1173
MS. KUHN said, "I have (indisc.) with those four children and I
don't think that a traffic fine ever seemed to keep them from
having to show a power or anything. It was the person who held the
purse strings on accessing the vehicle that got them into trouble
to begin with. That was the problem or whether the responsibility
lies in allowing the kids to even have access to something. So I
don't think that fining kids is going to keep them from buying that
tobacco. I think you have to fine the parents or fine the
sellers."
Number 1213
JENNY MURRAY testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She said
while SSHB 159 is a bill that would strengthen the laws of
restricting youth access to tobacco, it almost seems that it is a
wolf in sheep's clothing. The bill seems to increase the license
fee for tobacco merchants -- increases the penalties for illegal
sales to underage kids. She said the bill provides no resource or
mechanism for effective enforcement of the law and it would
prohibit the use of the most effective enforcement mechanism which
is (indisc.) coming from underaged buyers. Ms. Murray explained
SSHB 159 would make it illegal for you to even attempt to purchase
tobacco without providing any sort of exemption for necessary law
enforcement activities. She said the real impact of the bill would
be to discourage effective enforcement, while at the same time it
would criminalize kids. Ms. Murray urged the committee not to move
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he would like to point out that there is
no criminal element in the legislation. It is nothing more than
something very similar to a citation. You are issued a fine which
you'll pay. If you're caught twice during a two-year period, the
first time you'd be fined $250 and the second time it would be
$500. That is $750 a kid will have to fork out. If you look at it
from a cigarette tax perspective at $1 per pack, that is the
equivalent of 75 cartons of cigarettes.
Number 1326
ERIC MYERS testified via teleconference from Anchorage on behalf of
himself. He said SSHB 159 has been disturbing to watch as it has
evolved. Originally introduced, this was a classic tobacco
industry (indisc.) with all of the favorite provisions. The
provision that would have reinstated the possibility of using
electronic switching devices was an issue that was specifically
addressed, debated and rejected in 1992. He said the driver
license revocation provision, which was originally in the bill, is
classic and makes criminals out of victims. Mr. Myers said the
subject is switched in that the attention is being focused on the
kids and it avoids the topic of who is really at fault, the
vendors. He said some of the most (indisc.) elements still remain
in the bill such as on page 2, line 7. He said by prohibiting the
attempt to purchase, this bill would gut the most effective
enforcement mechanism that's available. The signage and signature
provisions are simply window-dressing provisions. He pointed out
kids are getting busted, but the real issue is what's happening to
vendors. We already have tough laws, but they've never been
enforced. Mr. Myers said the CSSSHB 159(L&C) is a desperate ploy
to bump the age from 19 to 21. He indicated the average age of
smoking initiation is about 14 and about 90 percent of the smokers
are already hooked by the age of 19. The tobacco tax is endorsed
by all leading health authorities in the nation. He stated it is
the tobacco industry that is promoting SSHB 159.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the committee has not heard any testimony
specifically and directly that the tobacco industry supports the
bill.
MR. MYERS said the tobacco wholesalers strike him as being the
essence of the tobacco industry. He asked if he is missing
something.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Myers if he has any other evidence
about the tobacco industry promoting the bill.
MR. MYERS stated all of the elements in the bill are similar
elements that have been used elsewhere by the tobacco industry. He
said the tobacco industry is using this bill as a vehicle to
distract attention from the tobacco tax.
Number 1664
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified that the legislation was not brought
to him by the tobacco industry and it is not a bill, as far as he
knows, that is promoted by the tobacco industry. It is a measure
that has been acknowledged as a positive step by the American
Legislative Exchange Council as well as the National Conference of
State Legislators.
Number 1687
DIANA KUHNS, Chief Operating Officer, Western Pacific Division,
American Cancer Society, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage against SSHB 159. She said her organization's position
has been (indisc.) by the Surgeon General's 1994 report titled,
"Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People." The report states
laws prohibiting minors possession of tobacco should be addressed
only after effective regulation and enforcement at the (indisc.) in
place. Effective regulation enforcement of illegal tobacco sales
are not yet in place in Alaska. Ms. Kuhns said SSHB 159 would
increase the fines for minors who possess tobacco and would further
criminalize kids who attempt to purchase tobacco. Until those
(indisc.) from the sale of tobacco are held accountable under the
current law, her organization vigorously opposes any future
penalties for the children. Ms. Kuhns stated tobacco taxes have
been proven to be highly effective and one reason is because they
are simple. They don't require police involvement or community
vigilance. She referred to a recent New York Times article and
said the tobacco industry has found ways around everything we have
done to reduce smoking by teenagers, but they can't repeal the laws
of economics.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT informed the committee members that last year
when representatives of the American Cancer Society visited his
office, he ran his ideas by them and they endorsed every one of
them, including the increased fine. He said it's strange how
things change in one year.
Number 1825
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came before the
committee. She said she is in attendance because the Division of
Occupational Licensing administers the business license program
which has the tobacco endorsement attached to it. Ms. Reardon said
it is her suggestion that a business, with a business license with
a tobacco endorsement, that is under suspension or revocation, be
prevented from obtaining another business license with a tobacco
endorsement during that time of suspension or revocation. She said
because business licenses are basically a revenue generator for the
state, one owner is able to obtain multiple business licenses under
different business names. She said she thinks that there is the
likelihood that someone whose tobacco endorsement has been
suspended or revoked might choose the option of paying another $50
and slightly alter their business name. Ms. Reardon said she
believes it would fit in with the intent of the legislation that
that be prohibited.
MS. REARDON indicated she had another suggestion. She said on page
6, where the different suspensions and penalties are mentioned, it
talks about a violation of a provision of this section. She
referred to line 5 which read, "violates a provision of this
section or a regulation implementing this section adopted under AS
43.70.090." She stated that AS 43.70.090 is a statute which says
that the Department of Commerce and Economic Development may adopt
regulations necessary to determine and collect the fees imposed by
this chapter. She suggested deleting on line "adopted under AS
43.70.090" so that it would also apply to other regulations that
they had adopted concerning tobacco endorsements. It also appears
on line 11 and 14. She said, "A connected wish in order to enable
us to even think about enforcing against people who violate the
endorsement regulations would be the department be given authority
to adopt regulations to administer the tobacco endorsement program
as a whole." That would require a minor amendment to AS 43.70.090.
Number 2002
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the department will have a zero fiscal
note.
MS. REARDON referred to the increase of $25 to $100 for the tobacco
endorsement and said it would show an increase in revenue. The
anticipated increase in revenue would be $66,300 in even years and
$49,200 in odd years. This is because of the two-year cycle. She
noted they have more business with tobacco endorsements during even
years than odd years.
MS. REARDON referred to possible costs and said the system is that
if someone is ever convicted of selling tobacco improperly, which
hasn't occurred to her knowledge, then that information would be
forwarded to the Department of Commerce and Economic Development
and they would suspend the endorsement as specified by the bill.
She explained that if someone were to be convicted, the department
would have to file an accusation and give them an administrative
hearing under the APA to basically prove that, "Yes, you were
convicted; yes, you are going to get your license or endorsement
suspended." There hasn't been any costs, to date, because it
hasn't occurred, but she would have to assume that there is some
intention to somehow provide resources to municipal police or to
someone to do enforcement behind this bill. She said she would
assume that she would get a notice of convictions and have to go
through the hearing process. Ms. Reardon said, "One suggestion
would be that perhaps someone has already had adequate due process
through the conviction by the court, and so as you did with the
hunting guide law last year, perhaps you could say that a hearing
is not required to suspend the license. It will be an automatic
result. The court convicts -- just a line that says there will be
no hearing provided to suspend is based on a court conviction."
She said they would have had better due process than she could have
provided. That would also speed the suspension going into effect
as she could be working on a hearing for six months. Ms. Reardon
said if she does give a second hearing to prove that a person has
been convicted, if there are going to be ten convictions a year --
in talking with the Attorney General's Office, they suggested at
their $87 per hour rate that they charge the department to deal
with the hearings, there would probably five days of legal costs
which would be $32,600.
MS. REARDON informed the committee members that there is no
enforcement staff for unlicensed business activity which means that
if someone chooses not to get a tobacco endorsement for their
business license and continues to sell, there isn't anybody who
goes out, catches them and punishes them. She said that is because
the Division of Occupational Licensing is running completely off of
license fees from occupations, she can't say that she will take
some of the doctor's fees and spend it on the hearing. That would
be contrary to the statutory setup they have for licensing fees.
She explained that business license fees and tobacco endorsement
money goes into the general fund, although the legislature does
permit her to spend a certain amount of it on administering
business licenses. To this point, that has not included paying for
any enforcement staff or attendant legal activities. Ms. Reardon
explained when someone calls her and tells her that someone doesn't
have a tobacco endorsement, either because they lost it or never
got one, her division has resorted to sending them a letter with an
application.
Number 2248
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY referred to a business not having a tobacco
license endorsement and asked what the division does about that.
MS. REARDON said, "We send them a letter saying, `It looks like
maybe you're out of compliance with the business license law.' But
since the whole goal of the business license law has been as a tax
- as a revenue generator, we sit there and say, `Well, the license
is only $50. Is it worth the government spending more than $50
trying to go to court against the person?' And I think the answer
has been, `No.' But the tobacco endorsement is intended to have a
kind of regulatory function now. One of your punishments for
selling illegally is losing this right to sell tobacco and if
that's going to truly be a scary potential outcome, my little
letter is probably not going to hurt enough to worry people." Ms.
Reardon said it all comes back to enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Ms. Reardon if she has found that most
of the businesses conform to the requirement of obtaining a
business license.
MS. REARDON responded that she doesn't know what the compliance
rate is. She noted there about 67,000 business license holders in
the state. Ms. Reardon said she would say a good amount have
business licenses and the division tries to make it easy to get
them. She said she thinks that people will get business licenses
and tobacco endorsements initially, but she thinks that if they
have that endorsement suspended or taken away so that it is
actually impinging on their ability to make a living through
cigarette sales, that is when that voluntary, "yeah, we'll
cooperate with the government, we'll get the tobacco endorsement,
we'll do what government says," may break down.
Number 2366
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said that every Sunday in the Anchorage
paper there is a section of (indisc.) and some say, "We're licensed
and bonded," and some don't say anything. He said maybe a high
percentage don't have licenses. Representative Cowdery questioned
whether until there is a complaint, nobody would know.
MS. REARDON said if it is something like a construction, they do
have enforcement for that and it's paid for by the license fees of
construction contractors. She said when they get complaints or if
they notice something flagrant in the yellow pages, they do have a
manner of going about it. However, that money can only be spent on
construction contractors and it can't be spent on the business
license part of things.
Number 2411
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY referred to the tobacco issue of tax and
asked how the division would address a problem if there is a tax
and cigarettes were to be bootlegged.
MS. REARDON said she would probably turn to the Department of
Revenue that actually collects the tobacco tax and say, "What do
you do now when people don't pay tobacco tax?" She said she would
assume that the Department of Revenue does have some enforcements
efforts for the tobacco tax.
Number 2459
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director, Income and Excise Audit Division,
Department of Revenue, came before the committee. He said that
currently as both the compliance and audit functions have been
shrunk by budgets over time, Representative Cowdery's statement
about priorities and dollar values do drive what they do. Tobacco
has been almost a completely voluntarily....
TAPE 97-38, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. BARTHOLOMEW continued, "...with the tobacco tax given that if
you were to pass that significant of an increase, the priorities
are going to change because there is going to be quite a bit more
money involved. So, for some of our programs, given there is no
resources for auditor compliance or we prioritize, there has been
very little other than voluntary compliance." He noted they follow
up on tips and leads which generally comes from the industry
itself. If they find somebody who is not following the business
laws, that upsets them, so they will provide information to the
department.
Number 0032
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon if she thinks that the
committee should include a fine for doing business without a
license and maybe institute a finder's fee to help promote the
enforcement of that.
MS. REARDON said she believes that it is currently a criminal
misdemeanor to practice without a license. She noted the statute
is vague because it is an old statute. Ms. Reardon stated she
doesn't know how finder's fee might work, but she would be
interested in anything that would help enforcement.
Number 0069
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the legislation provides for the APA to be
followed and, therefore, the hearing, if there is a finding for
revocation or suspension, the standard would be criminal
negligence. He said he is concerned about the height of that
standard. He referred to Ms. Reardon's suggestion that perhaps we
could have it automatic without going through the APA and said it
seems to him that if there could be an exemption, there wouldn't be
a problem. But then there could be a problem as to the due process
portion of it. He indicated he doesn't know how it would work,
particularly with criminal negligence.
MS. REARDON said, "Mr. Chair, you're correct that if I had to
determine whether - not just the person was convicted, but they
were convicted and criminally negligent - if it's some different
standard than just convicted, I would probably have to give them a
chance to defend themselves -- no it wasn't criminally negligent.
But if it were an automatic trigger, if convicted -- criminally
negligent or not, just if convicted they shall be suspended for a
set period of time. Not maybe and not the `up to' where we had to
make a subjective decision, then I think at least the hunting guide
bill allowed some of this automatic triggering with no additional
APA hearing."
Number 0168
LOREN JONES, Director, Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse,
Department of Health and Social Services, came before the
committee. He said the Department of Health and Social Services
certainly supports enforcement activities as one of the tools for
denying access or decreasing access to persons under 19. The
department shares concerns of how the enforcement takes place and
that there be some real enforcement done. He said as
Representative Kott has testified, there certainly is enforcement
against the youths who use. There has been no convictions of
vendors, partly because it takes the resources of the local law
enforcement. Mr. Jones said they would support looking at the
structure that the ABC Board has. He said in Title IV, the ABC
Board or the Department of Revenue collect the license fee for a
person who is licensed to sell alcohol. That then is refunded back
to the municipality in which that business does business with the
restriction that the local municipality must enforce state and
local ordinances and laws. He said it's not that they get back any
fines that are collected from that, but they get back the actual
license fee itself. Mr. Jones said for this particular case, the
$100 license endorsement fee would be the pool of money that could
be sent back to the municipalities as opposed to the fines
collected because no fines have ever been collected. He stated
there are fines for the kids and those are being collected. Mr.
Jones referred to the statute regarding refunds to municipalities
and said there is a structure to refund to the municipalities the
actual license fee that is collected for an individual who is
licensed to sell alcohol.
Number 0268
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the sponsor of the bill may want to consider
increasing that licensure endorsement fee to generate a bigger pool
of income to implement the enforcement.
MR. JONES said, "I don't know if this an annual figure or biannual
figure -- every two years, but I believe they refund back to
municipalities close to $900,000 based on the fees that are
collected." He said this would get enforcement back to local
communities.
MR. JONES indicated he hasn't seen the proposed committee
substitute, so the department doesn't have an opinion on raising
the age from 19 to 21. He said their general position is that the
department does support an increase in enforcement activities if
there is a viable process that results in increased enforcement,
not only on the youth but also on the vendors. He noted they also
view that as not a substitute for the tax. It is part of a
process, but the largest impact on youth use will still be from
increased taxes.
Number 0387
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Jones if there is any way he
could formulate a policy decision on the age being changed from 19
to 21.
MR. JONES indicated he would and it would be fairly soon.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he thinks that is a very important point.
He said he would note, for the record, that he is very concerned
about this and is disturbed with it being an ex-miliary person in
the U.S. Army. He said the purpose of the taxation is to keep
youth from commencing or taking up smoking. He said it seems like
anything, you get a point of diminishing returns once you get to a
certain age level. He asked what benefits are going to accrue to
society by prohibiting 20-year olds from smoking. Chairman
Rokeberg again asked Mr. Jones to review the age listed in the bill
and get back to the committee. He also asked him if he would also
check the information regarding approximately 1,000 citations
issued for underage smoking in Anchorage and Juneau. Some
corroboration for that would be good for the record.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated he has those numbers in his office
and they were provided to him last week by the Municipality of
Anchorage and the City and Borough of Juneau.
Number 0628
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Mr. Jones if he would advocate that a
tobacco board should be created similar to the ABC Board.
MR. JONES said as you look at the way the enforcement bills are
going, and in terms of Representative Kott's bill and others, there
are restrictions on sales. He referred to Representative Cowdery's
bill saying it has to be a face-to-face sale and the tobacco has to
be behind a secure counter and said those issues are very similar
to alcohol sales. Currently, the ABC Board has powers to
investigate and they have investigators. They have powers to
restrict and revoke licenses without taking individuals to court.
They can take individuals to court, but they also have a procedure
in statute. He said as opposed to the Department of Commerce and
Economic Development and Department of Revenue, which don't have
enforcement people, some of the powers to have the license to
collect the fees and enforce the restrictions on the license and
the sales, if the legislature desired, probably could be
transferred to the ABC Board. He noted he has raised this issue
with the ABC Board as a potential mechanism because they are
currently in that business. Mr. Jones pointed out in many states
tobacco and alcohol sales occur in grocery stores side-by-side. To
his knowledge about five states have, because of Synar Amendment
and tobacco enforcement, turned their tobacco enforcement over
their alcohol beverage control people because they're in the same
businesses and are using some of the same procedures to monitor
sales. He noted the attorney general for the state of Virginia
recently turned that type of enforcement over their ABC Board.
Number 0768
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the ABC Board then returns the license
fees to the local municipalities and boroughs.
MR. JONES indicated that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said, "So that's a certain designated amount
that the municipalities know they have. They are then policing
primarily the retailers. Don't you think it would be more
effective because it would give police - Municipality of Anchorage
or Juneau - more of an incentive to rebate, in some form or
fashion, fines that are collected? They're not only doing the
retail establishments, but they're also hitting on the underage
kids or those who might be providing tobacco products to underage
kids - just the neighbor walking on the street."
MR. JONES explained the statute reads that they will refund back to
the municipality those fees. The statute then goes on to state
that the commissioner of the Department of Revenue shall withhold
that refund if the commissioner of the Department of Revenue
determines that they are not enforcing all state laws, local
ordinances or federal rules regarding alcohol. He said most police
departments receive that money. Mr. Jones said, "In the City and
Borough of Juneau, which I am the most familiar with having lived
here for so long and been involved in this, that money because they
are not allowed to dedicate funds, basically is shown as a general
fund and then shown back as a receiving of the police department.
And enforcing of minor consuming, enforcing drunk driving statutes,
enforcing non-sales to an intoxicated persons, no open container --
all of those are local ordinances or state laws around alcohol that
they enforce. It is not simply an enforcement back on the vendors.
They justify with minor consuming which is a law." He said he
would assume the same thing would apply. Mr. Jones pointed out
that what is missing in enforcement to date is enforcement on the
vendor. Local enforcement officers are currently arresting the
kids. A conviction on the vendor has never been done because it is
a resource issue with the police. It takes time, effort and
resources. That is what an ABC Board investigator could do.
Number 0768
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he believes there are federal requirements
for the state to come up with some enforcement with the vendors.
They do spot checks, et cetera, in order to receive some federal
money. He said when you look at the number of retail
establishments, bars and restaurants that sell alcohol, they're
dealing with a license that is worth quite a bit more than what
currently exists to sell tobacco. He said even if the fee is
raised to $100, we've learned from Ms. Reardon's testimony that the
most we can generate is $66,000. That's half of a police officer
in Anchorage.
MR. JONES said, "I think I heard two questions there. One is on the
federal rules what's called Synar. We are in fact required to do
compliance checks to determine what the percentage of successful
sales are and with the goal of by the year 2000, reducing that to
20 percent or less. That has been a responsibility of my division
because if the state fails to reach that level, then there is a
penalty against the substance abuse treatment and prevention block
grant which comes into my division to pay for treatment and
prevention programs around alcohol and drug abuse. We do those
compliance checks. We are not, through that process, collecting
evidence for criminal cases. We are simply attempting to find out
if vendors sell and recording that as statistical information. The
federal government is very clear that compliance check is not to be
used for enforcement, that enforcement is a separate activity. So
we are doing compliance checks. The results last year, statewide,
were about 32 percent of the time a youth doing that with us could
successfully purchase. That's very good compared to a lot states
and it shows that 68 percent of the vendors are in fact complying
with the law."
MR. JONES referred to the dollar amount and said, "You're correct
that $100 the way it is now -- I believe in discussion with
Catherine, currently if you get a business license to operate a
retail outlet and you operate five or six different stores, you
have one business license. You get one tobacco endorsement for
those five stores, that's $100. Catherine has talked about the
possibility of saying you need a separate tobacco endorsement for
each, which would certainly increase the revenues and would be more
similar to a liquor outlet if you held multiple licenses -- you
have to have separate licenses for each place where you sell
alcohol -- that would increase the fees. You certainly, as a
legislature, could raise that to $200 or $300. Some liquor
licenses now for two years are up to $1,500. It depends on the
amount of revenues you want to share back to municipalities to
incentifize (ph) to enforce this - to give them some of the
resources they need."
Number 0934
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that was the point he was trying to make.
There is not enough incentive even if it is raised four times the
amount. With the number of citations that would be issued and the
potential court appearances, the city would be losing money.
MR. JONES said the ABC Board has at times received either federal
money or some other processes whereby they have issued grants to
local municipalities to pay the overtime to the police officers.
He said he believes the last time they issued grants, they had
about $80,000 or $90,000. The local police departments applied for
a grant and they paid overtime. Mr. Jones said he and Mr.
Bartholomew had discussed what they would buy and given the amount
a police officer makes, if the overtime costs any where from $40 to
$70 and hour, you would for $90,000 get about 2,000 hours down to
about 1,300 hours depending on the price, of added enforcement if
a police would in fact apply through that grant process. That's
another mechanism based on a different fee and a different
structure, that's in no bill that I know of now but certainly one
that could be put together." Mr. Jones said if a police department
wishes to enforce, they would certainly encourage them to.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated there were no further witnesses to
testify. He said SSHB 159 would be held over for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 6:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|