Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
01/29/2025 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB57 | |
| HB68 | |
| HB49 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 68-ALCOHOL: SALE, WARNING SIGNS
[Contains discussion of HB 37.]
4:15:50 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 68, "An Act relating to the sale of alcohol;
and relating to the posting of warning signs for alcoholic
beverages."
4:16:10 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 4:16 p.m.
4:16:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 68,
labeled 34-LS0340\N.1, C. Radford, 1/27/25, which read as
follows:
Page 1, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "; and relating to the posting of warning
signs for alcoholic beverages"
Page 6, lines 6 - 22:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
4:16:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:17:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted there are two elements of HB 68:
lowering the age of service for alcohol, and cancer warning
signs for alcoholic beverages. He remarked that the two
elements are separate: the first is a workforce issue, while
the second is a public health issue. He stated that while he is
in support of lowering the age of service for alcohol, there is
another piece of legislation [HB 37] that mirrors the provisions
in HB 68 for cancer warning signs for alcoholic beverages. He
offered his belief that it is important to consider the two
issues separately.
4:18:18 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS maintained his objection to Amendment 1 to HB
68. He stated that HB 37 would take an additional step in
consolidating the number of signs that are posted in
establishments. He remarked that he is in support of hearing HB
37, but not supportive of taking language out of HB 68 at this
time. Co-Chair Fields noted further concerns that "opening the
bill up" would result in delay for an important workforce bill.
He felt a sense of urgency in giving the [hospitality] industry
some predictability, considering the season typically starts at
the beginning of summer.
4:19:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE supported the amendment to separate the
two issues. She noted there was a testifier who preferred HB 37
over the provisions in HB 68.
4:19:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER didn't see how Amendment 1 to HB 68 would
cause delay. He argued that by taking the cancer warning
provisions out, HB 68 would become a single-issue bill, thus
allowing for smoother passage through the legislature.
4:20:00 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Nelson, Coulombe,
and Saddler voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 1 to
HB 68. Representatives Burke, Carrick, Fields, and Hall voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3-4.
4:20:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 68,
labeled 34-LS0340\N.2, Bergerud/C. Radford, 1/28/25, which read
as follows:
Page 2, line 17, following "beverages":
Insert "; the supervision described in this
paragraph must be provided in person by a manager or
supervisor of the business who is 21 years of age or
older and who has been charged with the task of
providing the supervision"
Page 3, line 20, following "beverages":
Insert "; the supervision described in this
paragraph must be provided in person by a manager or
supervisor of the business who is 21 years of age or
older and who has been charged with the task of
providing the supervision"
Page 4, line 16, following "beverages":
Insert "; the supervision described in this
paragraph must be provided in person by a manager or
supervisor of the business who is 21 years of age or
older and who has been charged with the task of
providing the supervision"
Page 4, line 26, following "beverages.":
Insert "A person employed as permitted under this
subsection shall be supervised in person by a manager
or supervisor of the business who is 21 years of age
or older and who has been charged with the task of
ensuring that the employee will not consume alcoholic
beverages."
4:20:48 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:20:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that Amendment 2 to HB 68 clearly
identifies and delineates the responsibilities for those
supervising employees under the age of 21. He remarked that it
is important that young people in the hospitality industry have
guidance from someone who is older, and that this person is
clearly identified as directly responsible for their
supervision. He asserted that, from the owner's perspective,
having clearly delineated supervision for employees under 21
will ease concerns for insurance providers about potential
increased liability. He concluded that Amendment 2 to HB 68 is
good for owners of licensed premises, young workers, and public
acceptance of HB 68.
4:22:28 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL maintained her objection to Amendment 2 to HB 68.
4:22:37 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for the definition of "adequate
supervision" under HB 68.
4:23:45 PM
JOE BANKOWSKI, Enforcement Supervisor, Alcohol and Marijuana
Control Office (AMCO), Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development, stated that clarification on "adequate
supervision" would be helpful.
4:24:12 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS [objected] to Amendment 2 to HB 68. He voiced
concern over ambiguity around spaces where supervision would be
required. He stated he would not want for regulations to
require an "older adult" supervise employees between the ages of
18-21 years old, as Amendment 2 to HB 68 is written.
4:24:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE stated her intention to protect the
licensee from legal trouble. She stated support for Amendment
2.
4:25:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK found the answer from AMCO to be
inadequate. She agreed with Co-Chair Fields that Amendment 2 to
HB 68 could restrict the workforce that the bill is meant
include.
4:26:11 PM
MR. BANKOWSKI clarified that historically someone who is allowed
to operate in this supervisory position would be someone over 21
years old. He specified that he is not trying to take a
position one way or another on what the amendment should look
like or how it should be written.
4:26:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK stated that a supervisor present on the
premises of the restaurant where an 18- to 21-year-old is
serving would likely count as adequate supervision.
MR. BANKOWSKI answered yes.
4:27:04 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that he agreed with Representative
Coulombe in protecting the licensee from legal trouble,
regarding Amendment 2.
4:27:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that the premise can be far
distant from one end to the other end. He offered his belief
that the way HB 68 is currently written would invite unwanted
legal deliberation over the meaning of "adequate supervision".
He offered his belief that it's important that HB 68 clarifies
the degree of supervision. He welcomed [conceptual] amendments
to Amendment 2.
4:28:19 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coulombe, Nelson,
and Saddler voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 2 to
HB 68. Representatives Carrick, Burke, Hall, and Fields voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 to HB 68 failed to be
adopted by a vote of 3-4.
4:29:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK stated that she appreciated both
amendments in intent. She noted that even with the passage of
HB 68, Alaska would still be rather restrictive compared to
other states.
4:30:05 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated his hope that AMCO would work with
stakeholders in providing a clear definition of "adequate
supervision".
4:30:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that, although he did not support
the provisions for cancer warnings, he supported the underlying
element of HB 68, that is, allowing younger people into the
workforce. He offered his belief that the bill is unbalanced,
but that he might support it.
4:30:38 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL moved to report HB 68 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 68 was reported out of the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.