Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/01/1995 03:08 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 & COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 1, 1995
3:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kott, Chairman
Representative Rokeberg, Vice Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Brian Porter
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 140: "An Act relating to surety bonds required of certain fish
processors."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 17: "An Act relating to the titles that describe the two
principal executive officers of electric and telephone
cooperatives."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 162: "An Act related to the authority of certain beverage
dispensary licensees to stock alcoholic beverages in guest
rooms."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 146: "An Act relating to sled dog race classics."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Room 434
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2487
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 140
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director
Income & Excise Audit Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110420
Juneau, AK 99811-0420
Telephone: (907) 465-5364
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 140
ROD MOURANT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 432
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 140 and gave the
sponsor statement for HB 162 and
DONNA PARKER, Fisheries Specialist
Division of Economic Development
Department of Commerce & Economic Development
P.O. Box 110804
Juneau, AK 99811-0804
Telephone: (907) 4655464
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 140
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Room 24
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 17
DAVE HUTCHENS, Executive Director
Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association
703 West Tudor, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 463-3636
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 17
MIKE MONAGLE, Supervisor
Records and Licensing
Division of Banking, Securities & Corporations
Department of Commerce & Economic Development
P.O. Box 110808
Juneau, AK 99811-0608
Telephone: (907) 465-3257
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 17
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 140
SHORT TITLE: SMALL FISH PROCESSOR SURETY BONDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN, Elton, Williams
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/01/95 199 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/01/95 199 (H) FSH, L&C
02/15/95 (H) FSH AT 03:30 PM CAPITOL 124
02/20/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/20/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/21/95 431 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ELTON
02/22/95 445 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 2DP 1NR
02/22/95 445 (H) DP: OGAN, ELTON
02/22/95 445 (H) NR: AUSTERMAN
02/22/95 445 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV)
03/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 17
SHORT TITLE: OFFICERS OF UTILITY COOPERATIVES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 25 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, LABOR & COMMERCE
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/95 293 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NEW TITLE 6DP 1NR
02/10/95 294 (H) DP: JAMES, PORTER, GREEN, ROBINSON
02/10/95 294 (H) DP: WILLIS, OGAN
02/10/95 294 (H) NR: IVAN
02/10/95 294 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
02/10/95 294 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
03/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 162
SHORT TITLE: ALCOHOL SALES IN HOTEL ROOMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT, Toohey, James
JRN-DATE JRN-PAGE ACTION
02/08/95 272 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/08/95 272 (H) ITT, L&C
02/16/95 407 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
02/28/95 (H) ITT AT 02:30 PM CAPITOL 408
02/28/95 (H) MINUTE(ITT)
03/01/95 526 (H) ITT RPT 4DP 2NR
03/01/95 526 (H) DP: KOTT, PORTER, JAMES, ROBINSON
03/01/95 526 (H) NR: MASEK, AUSTERMAN
03/01/95 527 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV)
03/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 146
SHORT TITLE: SLED DOG RACE CLASSIC
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FOSTER, Phillips, Mulder, Navarre,
Brice Grussendorf, Toohey, Ivan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/03/95 235 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/03/95 235 (H) CRA, L&C
02/13/95 343 (H) COSPONSOR(S): IVAN
02/14/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/15/95 365 (H) CRA RPT 4DP 1NR
02/15/95 366 (H) DP: MACKIE, ELTON, IVAN, NICHOLIA
02/15/95 366 (H) NR: AUSTERMAN
02/15/95 366 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV)
02/27/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/27/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-12, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Labor & Commerce Standing Committee Meeting was called to
order by Chairman Pete Kott at 3:08 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Kott, Rokeberg, Elton, Masek and
Kubina. Representatives Porter and Sanders were absent.
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT stated that there was a quorum present. He
announced the meeting was on teleconference.
Representative Sanders joined the meeting directly after the call
to order.
HB 140 - SMALL FISH PROCESSOR SURETY BONDS
Number 017
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 140, stated that
over the years the fishing industry has changed from large
conglomerates monopolizing the industry to today's small
businessman that are starting to realize the necessity for
marketing and processing in mixture. The present economy today is
starting to require that fisherman start marketing their own fish,
eliminating the need for the middle man. The small fisherman will
not be processing the volume that the that the large conglomerates
do. He has introduced this bill to reduce the cost of the surety
bond from $10,000 to $2,000 for those processors who are processing
30,000 pounds of fish or less. Representative Austerman noted that
this bill went through the Special Committee on Fisheries with a CS
offered 2-22-95, for HB 140.
CHAIRMAN KOTT entertained a motion to adopt CSHB 140(FSH) for
review. He asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, he
stated that they did have before them the CS for HB 140 version C
dated 2-22-95.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained that the original bill did not
include an amount to satisfy the final judgment if the processor
were in default, they added this amount in the CS.
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INCOME AND EXCISE AUDIT DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, stated that the Department of Revenue
prepared a zero fiscal note and didn't see any operating problems.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG asked how much the premium was for
the bond.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW stated that the premium would be paid by the person
or entity being bonded.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this was a large economic burden.
Number 170
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON commented that fisherman want to add value
to their business. He said instead of just being a harvester of a
raw resource, they feel they can enhance their ability to make
money out of the industry. This bill lowers the burden on those
who want to enter the processing end of the industry.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if anyone knew what the premium was
on a $10,000 bond.
CHAIRMAN KOTT answered that it was about a 1 percent premium.
ROD MOURANT, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT,
stated that the estimate three to four years ago was a 1 percent
ratio of cost to coverage.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS clarified that on $10,000 it was $100.
MR. MOURANT explained that it was an extremely low premium because
the default rate had gone down considerably. There use to be a
high incidence of non payment of wages by out of state fish
processors. This is an attempt to guarantee that the workers and
fisherman receive payment for the goods and services they provide.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked how much 30,000 pounds of fish cost.
He asked if a $2,000 bond would cover 30,000 pounds of fish.
Number 238
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked who was being protected with the
bond, the purchaser or the seller.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW answered that the bond was intended to protect the
person that had provided labor to the processor, or to the
fisherman that had sold fish to a processor.
Number 252
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Bartholomew to explain how the Department
of Revenue works the bonding mechanism.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW explained that if the employee or fisherman has not
been compensated by the employer, they contact the Commissioner of
Administration and the Income and Excise Audit Division and
initiate action on the bond.
Number 257
CHAIRMAN KOTT queried that if there wasn't a claim within two
years, the bond was returned.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW stated that the bond is renewed every two years,
only if there hasn't been a claim against the bond. He stated that
for all practical purposes, the bond remains with the Department of
Revenue in the form of the certificate of deposit (CD) or an
updated bond issued by an insurance company.
Number 257
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the CD or bond draws interest.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW answered that the interest earned on the securities
accrues to the person that provided for them, not to the state of
Alaska.
Number 284
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why not do away with the bond, if we
want to get rid of the burden on small processors.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW replied that one reason to have the bond, is that
the department maintains a list of whose bonds have been attached
by people not compensated.
Number 295
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted that if a company is in default, the
size of the bond grows. The bond itself offers a certain amount of
protection with the provision that the bond grows if the company is
in default. He explained that it provides further protection to
employees or fish sellers that may not know the history of the
company.
Number 305
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN pointed out that he would not like to see
the bond dropped. He stated that for a clean operator the bond is
$10,000, other operators get penalized.
NUMBER 314
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS observed that if someone was in default,
their bond goes up the next time. This doesn't take care of their
obligations of the first default. He stated the bond is higher if
they ever apply for another, if they come back.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN commented that they didn't want to
penalize the clean operators.
Number 324
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if there were that many people
wanting to process fish that didn't have $100.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated that he wasn't sure if that figure
was correct. If 40 percent were actually putting up $10,000, that
didn't sound right.
Number 329
MR. BARTHOLOMEW stated that normally it's harder for a new business
to get an insurance company to bond them. He stated that new
business are often required to put up their own equity for the
bonds.
Number 339
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked how many CDs the department held.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW answered that currently they had 550 bonds, of
those 155 were CDs.
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that theoretically those 155 CDs could be
the result of a new business' inability to get bonded.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what it cost the state to process
such a diminutive item.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW answered that the cost to the state was very small.
He said that it definitely takes the time of some clerical people
and tax examiners, but it's a small part of a much bigger program.
He pointed out that there were seven claims against bonds last year
for a total of $75,000.
Number 397
DONNA PARKER, FISHERIES SPECIALIST, DIVISION OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
stated that she had been preparing a direct marketing manual for
fishermen who want to market their own fish. She stated that she
has interviewed dozens of fisherman as well as their buyers who are
already doing this. The up front costs of licensing, permits, and
things of this nature were considered a natural impediment to
getting their operations off the ground. She stated that this
legislation would be applauded by them.
Number 422
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to the letter Ms. Parker handed out. It
states that the purpose of the bond is to protect fisherman and
processor workers from companies that don't pay them in full. He
asked if she felt that this purpose would be satisfied by reducing
the bond from $10,000 to $2,000.
MS. PARKER replied that these fisherman were only processing their
own fish. They are not buying it from anyone else. In many cases,
these are family operations or single person operations that don't
have employees, and this would protect them too.
Number 442
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked why 30,000 pounds was selected versus 50,000 or
100,000.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained that numbers are arbitrary. The
history of the bonding process was that $10,000 was working well
for the larger processors, and for the smaller processors $2,000
will work well.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the Department of Commerce would
consider doing away with it entirely for the small processor.
MS. PARKER answered that she supported the sponsor's statement.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS inquired if it would better serve the
process if they left it at 10,000 for those with employees, and
dropped it for those without.
MS. PARKER responded that perhaps they could be totally exempt if
they didn't have employees and they could prove that.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked how they keep track of the number of pounds
processed.
MS. PARKER replied that fish tickets were used.
Number 483
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON agreed with Representative Sanders. He said
that they are not only protecting the employees, they are
protecting the seller.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented this was like red tape. He said
that if they were trying to help out small business people, they
should get rid of this and not just lower it 80 percent.
MS. PARKER stated that it was just brought to her attention that
the statute includes an exemption from the bonding requirement for
those with no employees.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated that he would consider it a
friendly amendment to exempt anything under 30,000 pounds.
Number 520
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He explained that, to some extent,
he would want to know who is the fly by night company and who
isn't. He said there was a benefit in knowing that the processor
advertising your fish is going to be around to pay for those fish.
Number 520
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that a $2,000 surety bond is no
guarantee that the person is going to be successful.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that having been a fisherman, he would
be much more comfortable dealing with someone who has shown some
amount of responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN pointed out that if the $2,000 is not
sufficient to cover their claim the first time, it would jump to
$10,000 then $20,000, and so on.
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that there should be some amount of bonding.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSHB 140(FSH), out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes.
Number 558
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were objections. Hearing none, the
motion passed.
HB 17 - OFFICERS OF UTILITY COOPERATIVES
Number 577
JEFF LOGAN, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN,
testified on behalf of Representative Green on CSHB 17 (STA). He
stated under Section 1. LEGISLATIVE INTENT, the legislature
believes that an electric co-op is authorized to expand the types
of utility services it offers. He referred to Subsection (b), and
said it was the intent of the legislature that the certificates to
operate be exclusive as to service areas, rather than permitting
electric cooperatives to enter into competition with another
provider of the same service. Section 2, subsection (6), expands
the list of services that electric coops are able to provide. He
said this is dealt with Chapter 10, the Corporations Code. This is
not a list of what the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC)
would permit or not permit, this is a list of when an electric
cooperative is formed, it falls under the corporations code, this
is what it can do according to statute. Mr. Logan explained that
for many years, cooperatives in rural Alaska have relied on the
Federal Rural Electrification Administration (REA) for low interest
loans to build facilities to generate and transmit electricity.
Last fall, the federal government reorganized the REA and combined
it with other agencies and renamed it the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS). The new RUS provides loans for water, sewer, electric and
telephone facilities. RUS is encouraging electric companies to
provide sewer and water services where it's needed in their service
areas. Mr. Logan said the problem was Alaska could not take
advantage of the new federal changes without this statutory change.
TAPE 12, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. LOGAN referred to Amendment 1 and said what they did was take
"direct satellite television" out of subsection 6, line 29, and
create a new subsection 7, including direct satellite television,
the effect being that the APUC will not have to approve with the
Certificate of Convenience and Necessity but the electric
cooperative could still offer that service.
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA queried that direct T.V. wasn't
available in Alaska yet, and asked why a utility would need to
provide this service.
MR. LOGAN replied that Dave Hutchens would respond to that during
his testimony. Continuing with the bill, Mr. Logan explained that
Section 3, simply states that the cooperative can call the
presiding officers of their board any title they want. Section 4
states that if a cooperative accepts both ballots by mail and at a
general meeting, the member can vote at one or the other.
Number 144
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if utilities, such as Golden Valley
and Chugach Electric Association, would be authorized by the
legislation to sell water, sewer and satellite services in their
jurisdictions.
MR. LOGAN stated that they would be authorized by law, not
necessarily approved to do so by the APUC.
Number 161
DAVID HUTCHENS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA RURAL ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference in support of
HB 17. He reiterated that this expands the powers of electric
cooperatives in the authorization section of electric co-ops, give
local option on the by laws of titles to be used for the officers
of electric and telephone cooperatives, and it makes it clear the
articles of incorporation can be amended by a vote by mail.
Number 203
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if RUS provides federal loans for
rural sewer and water.
MR. HUTCHENS answered yes. He stated that there was a substantial
amount of money available for investment in sewer and water plants
through that program.
Number 228
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that in Alaska Mr. Hutchens
wanted to develop natural gas distribution and production, also
direct satellite T.V., he asked why that was the case.
MR. HUTCHENS replied that Naknek Electric is convinced there is
natural gas in the area, not enough to interest major companies but
enough to provide local service to turn their generators.
Number 248
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the impact would be on the
certifications process with APUC, in certain urban areas like Mat-
su that have some gas services, and Anchorage, that has Enstar
service.
MR. HUTCHENS said there wouldn't be competition with Enstar. This
would be within their corporate powers, but does not mean they
would be authorized by the APUC to engage in that business. He
explained that there first would have to be a need for it. Enstar
is already providing service, and there wouldn't be a showing of a
need for Chugach to go into competition. The situation with the
satellite is that the electric cooperatives have access to the
National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC), which is
partner with Hugh's, that provides Direct T.V., Alaska cannot
receive this satellite broadcasting system. He said because of the
NRTC, the electric cooperatives have access to the programming
packages, in effect the cooperatives would simply be the middleman
in providing local billing services.
Number 300
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if electric co-ops could offer direct
television services to communities already being served by cable
companies.
MR. HUTCHENS answered that was not their intent, they would add to
that, "in outside areas certificated to cable television."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked the existing status in the state of
Alaska on satellite (indisc.--paper shuffling).
MR. HUTCHENS responded that the APUC certificates the cable company
as to the service area. They presently don't certificate anyone
for direct satellite TV service. They do not want anything in
statute that APUC certification was necessary to provide that
service.
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to the amount of time it would take to
receive a Certificate of Cconvenience authorizing them to expand
services into water, sewer and gas operations.
MR. HUTCHENS replied that it generally takes six months to fix
this.
MIKE MONAGLE, DIVISION OF BANKING, SECURITIES AND CORPORATIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, stated that the
department had a proposed amendment purely administrative. He said
that they administer (indisc--coughing) under Title 10, which
includes other types of cooperative corporations under Chapter 15,
Non-Profit Corporations; under Chapter 20, Business Corporations
under Chapter 6. All those chapters under Title 10 require that
corporations file with the state, on a biannual basis, a report
listing the officer's names and addresses for public record.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if this was currently practiced.
MR. MONAGLE answered yes, this being the only chapter that does not
file currently.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked what type of fee they would charge.
MR. MONAGLE stated that it would be a $60 fee with a $10 late fee.
This based on current fees paid by cooperatives under Chapter 15.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA commented that cooperatives change their
officers every year, why have a biannual report.
MR. MONAGLE explained that was the purpose for the Alaska post
section, providing statutory requirement that in the off year, they
file a notice with the division any changes in officers.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked why the filing date was July 2.
MR. MONOGUL stated that was the filing cycle all other co-ops under
Chapter 15 are on.
Number 428
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated the department's amendment would be Amendment
2.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that the committee adopt Amendment
1, which lists satellite television as another service utilities
can provide but does not say it should be regulated by APUC.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to move Amendment 1.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any objections.
Number 464
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He expressed concern that they
had not heard testimony from the cable, gas, and satellite
representatives.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if his concern was that APUC would allow
or provide competition with existing utilities. He explained that
the concept behind this was for only those areas that either have
failed utilities or don't have utilities at all, why not piggy back
them onto a rural electrification system that has the wear with all
to make it successful. It's not in any way intended to be
competition.
Number 510
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he was talking about gas
and satellite, not sewer and water. He reiterated that he was
concerned about an electrical cooperative which, to a degree, has
that ability to be subsidized via grants and federal tax dollars,
getting into businesses that can compete directly with private
enterprise.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that the gas industry had no problem
with this and he could provide a letter stating this if need be.
He also stated that the REA system is not a federally subsidized
program. The federal government makes loans, those loans are
repaid, they are not subsidies.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he was looking for
jurisdictional boundaries.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked for a roll call vote. Voting for Amendment 1
were Representatives Elton, Sanders, Masek, Kubina and Kott.
Representative Rokeberg voted against the amendment. Amendment 1
was adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that Amendment 2, brings into conformity what
is being done in other areas. If this were adopted though, he felt
the bill might require a title change as well.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA added that we might need to relook at the
fiscal notes since, the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development would be doing some of the work.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that they would address the fiscal notes in a
moment. He announced that they have Amendment 2 before them.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS made the motion to move Amendment 2.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were objections.
Number 549
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA objected. He didn't feel the state needed to
build up more reports, and the electrical users needed to spend
$2,000 to give it them.
CHAIRMAN KOTT felt that it did offer some continuity to what's
currently being done.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented that he would like to hear from
either the bill sponsor or the affected cooperatives.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he had no problem with this
amendment as this is currently being done anyway.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON requested to hear from Mr. Hutchens that he
didn't have a problem with the amendment.
MR. HUTCHENS stated this was a new issue that hasn't been before
the board, so they have no formal position on it, but he would be
surprised if any members would object to it.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that this was filed with APUC, it is
not currently filed with the Department of Commerce.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked for a roll call vote on Amendment 2.
Representatives Elton, Sanders Rokeberg, Masek and Kott voted in
favor of the amendment. Representative Kubina voted against the
amendment.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that the committee had before them the CS for
HB 17 (STA). He said since the committee adopted Amendment 2, the
fiscal note dated January 24, 1995, was no longer applicable.
Number 607
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noticed in his packet that there was a Senate
Bill as a companion, yet it had a fiscal note for the APUC done by
the Department of Commerce, of $76,000.
TAPE 95-13, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. LOGAN stated that there were differences in the House and
Senate versions. The reason we don't have a fiscal note is because
they hadn't been given one. The information before the committee
is the best available information at this time.
Number 031
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS shared Representative Rokeberg's concerns
that no one had testified from the satellite television industry.
He stated that he would feel better about the bill if it were to be
held over until March 3, and try to get someone to address those
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented that the bill were held over, he
would also like to hear from APUC regarding $76,000.
Number 056
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA interjected that a question he has is if the
gas line were to be built, are we giving utilities up and down the
line an advantage on being a distributor of that gas.
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that there are a lot of people tracking
this legislation and none had voiced any opposition on this piece
of legislation.
Number 097
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the addition of $1,100 fiscal note
meant that this need a committee referral to Finance.
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed, it would. He then asked the sponsor if any
of these concerns and issues brought up here were addressed in the
State Affairs Committee, that being the first committee of
referral.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied that no, they didn't indicate any
concern. There was some discussion on monopolism, but that was in
areas where no one else was providing, or wanted to provide the
service. If the committee wanted to draft a letter to the Finance
Committee saying these issues should be discussed, he had no
problem with that.
CHAIRMAN KOTT recommended that they pass the bill out of committee
with an attached letter of transmittal to the Finance Committee
indicating the specific concerns the committee has. He said he
would notify the Speaker that HB 17 had picked up a fiscal note and
would need a Finance Committee referral. Chairman Kott entertained
a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA made a motion to move the bill with
individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the is a motion to move CS for HB 17(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes with a letter of transmittal indicating the committee's
concerns.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were objections. Hearing none, the
motion passed.
HB 162 - ALCOHOL SALES IN HOTEL ROOMS
Number 206
ROD MOURANT, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT,
Prime Sponsor of HB 162, read the following sponsor statement:
"Currently, the Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) does
not allow alcoholic beverages to be stocked and served inside hotel
or motel rooms.
"House Bill 162 seeks to authorize the ABC to allow beverage
dispensary license holders the right to serve liquor within hotel
and motel rooms through what are commonly called mini bars. And
mini bars are small refriderated units that contain, often times,
different flavored waters, soft drinks, ice cube facilities and
that type of dispensory. It's a hospitality service that's
commonly offered in other states in the country, as well as many
international hotels as well.
"Hotel and management control this unique system either through a
locking device or electronic or mechanical means and would issue
the ability to open and use the facility only to a guest that is 21
years of age or older.
"This service would allow international guests greater comfort
during their travel through Alaska by providing they're commonly
used to. It would also allow hospitality service (indisc.) and
safety of a room while these individuals, in the comfort of their
room not to worry about having to travel to a local bar in a city
in which they're traveling through that they're not aware of --
familiar with. Also by having the facility in your hotel room, it
should reduce the incident of a traveler driving to a bar or a
night club nearby, having a drink or two or three and then driving
their rental car back to their hotel where they're staying.
"Adoption of this legislation would provide an enhancement to
Alaska's tourism industry and bring it into conforming with a
service that is frequently offered elsewhere."
MR. MOURANT offered that there was a zero fiscal note from the ABC
Board (ABC), as well as letters of support from the Hotel and Motel
Association who also offered verbal testimony in the previous
committee of referral supporting this service.
Number 251
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON questioned that on page 1, lines 9 and 10, it
states "a holder of a beverage or dispensary license issued to a
hotel, motel resort or similar business, that caters to the
traveling public," and what a "similar business" is.
MR. MOUNT stated that lodge facilities would also be covered under
this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA made a motion to move the HB 162 out of the
Hosue Labor and Commerce Committee.
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that it was currently legal to stock
hotel rooms with various non-alcoholic drinks, but it's cost
prohibitive. He said that the bill made it through the legislature
two years ago, where it was vetoed by Governor Hickel. Chairman
Kott asked if there was an objection in moving the bill. Hearing
none, the motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Their being no further business come before the House Labor and
Commerce Committee, Chairman Kott adjourned the meeting at 5:00
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|