Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/20/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB273 | |
| HB299 | |
| Public Testimony | |
| HB301 | |
| Public Testimony | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 273 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 301 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 301
"An Act relating to the renewal and transfer of
ownership of a beverage dispensary license or
restaurant or eating place license."
3:17:20 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for HB 301, Work Draft 30-LS1217\E (Bruce,
2/16/18).
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
LAURA STIDOLPH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, indicated
that the changes were recommended by DCCED. She reviewed
the changes in the committee substitute (CS):
Section 3
Page 3, Line 27, remove "established village"
Removes the phrase established village from the room
rental requirement calculations. This is consistent
with how the statute has been applied in the past, and
removing it maintains the status quo rather than
requiring the recalculation of populations and room
requirements, further disrupting the industry and
current licensees.
Page 4, Line 16, remove "on the licensed premises,"
after "holder of the license"
This was removed to ensure that the entire
establishment wasn't considered the licensed premises,
otherwise it is possible that a cottage or hotel room
Representative Wilson did not understand why the language "
established village" was removed.
Ms. Stidolph deferred to Ms. McConnell.
3:20:12 PM
Ms. McConnell clarified that an established village was
defined in statute as "to include an unincorporated
community and organized borough that has 25 or more
permanent residents and is either on or off the road system
depending on its distance to a unified municipality." She
explained that her research determined that the concept of
an established village was included in the calculation of
population for the application of license limits and the
number of rooms for a beverage dispensary tourism license
but had never been implemented. Including the language had
a significant effect on the location and transfer of
licenses and would cause momentous disruption.
Representative Guttenberg had recently heard that if there
was a 10-room hotel a person would be eligible for a
license to serve alcohol. He wondered whether the matter
was related to the deleted language. Ms. McConnell
explained that the Beverage Dispensary Tourism license
cited in AS.04.11.400d was an exemption to the population
licenses if certain requirements were met including the
number of rooms a hotel, motel, or resort had available
predicated on the location of the hotel. The larger the
community the more rooms were required. She understood that
in 1985, the number of rooms changed to more rooms per
larger community to halt the increase in alcohol licenses
in large communities like Anchorage. Representative
Guttenberg asked what effect eliminating established
village had on licensing. Ms. McConnell answered that it
did not affect how Title 4 was implemented since 1980. She
delineated that it appeared that unincorporated communities
like Talkeetna and Nikiski inside a borough would have a
population limit applied to them that did not apply prior
to the addition of the language.
3:24:29 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked whether the definition of the
population area established under (a) of this section [in
the bill] was the same as the definition DCCED used for
community assistance and whether the list was inclusive.
Ms. McConnell suggested he was referring to statute
concerning established villages as it related to refunds to
municipalities. Co-Chair Seaton clarified that he was
referring to page 3 of the bill and referred to the
definition Ms. McConnell read for established village and
thought it sounded like the definition of "a community"
that was used to determine DCCED's Community Assistance
Program. He wondered whether the same population parameters
applied. Ms. McConnell was not familiar with the Community
Assistance Program but offered to provide the information.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
CSHB 301 (FIN) was adopted as the working draft.
3:27:14 PM
Representative Wool explained the bill. He reiterated that
under the tourism dispensary license an establishment in
any size community could provide a facility with 10 rooms
and obtain a liquor license and the number of bars
proliferated. As a result, the population determinates were
added to statute. He detailed that the limit in Anchorage
and Fairbanks was 50 rooms; the number of rooms required
depended on the size of the municipality. He qualified that
34 establishments obtained their tourism dispensary license
prior to 1985. He communicated that when the room law was
rewritten the 34 establishments were not grandfathered in,
were in areas such as Fairbanks and other locations in the
state. Allowing the establishments to continue to operate
was challenged and the ability for the them to renew their
licenses was in question. House Bill 301 would grandfather
hospitality businesses that have been operating prior to
1985 except for a "couple" business that obtained licenses
in 1986 with an inadequate number of rooms that were
included in the bill. He reported that many businesses had
been operating for over thirty years and he wanted them to
remain in business. The legislation primarily grandfathered
in the 34 businesses. In addition, current statute mandated
that alchohol licensed businesses remain open for 30 8-hour
days per year. He noted that some businesses were only open
on weekends, and one was being fined for not operating
under the 8-hour day requirement. The bill changed the
statute to state that the business had to operate for 240
hours per year. Finally, a provision added "outdoor
recreation lodge licenses" to the list of establishments
that could be voter approved. He noted the its omission
from statute was an oversite and the outdoor lodges had
been issued licenses.
Representative Thompson asked whether the grandfathered
licenses were eligible to be sold. Representative Wool
answered in the affirmative and added that the
establishment must remain in the location and operate in
the same manner.
3:33:33 PM
Representative Pruitt wanted further clarification. He
wondered whether the businesses would operate under the
previous provisions in place at the time they were
licensed. Representative Wool replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Stidolph interjected that section 3, lines 8 through 10
of the bill specifically addressed the issue. She read the
following:
however, an application may not be denied because a
prospective transferee under AS 04.11.400(d)(2) does
not have the qualifications required under AS
04.11.400(d)(1);
Representative Pruitt asked if a grandfathered
establishment could sell to a newly built lodge in another
location meeting the requirements of the grandfathered
licensed. Representative Wool responded in the negative.
Representative Pruitt asked for the definition of an
outdoor recreation lodge. Ms. Stidolph read the definition
from statute:
Sec. 04.11.225. Outdoor recreation lodge license.
(a) An outdoor recreation lodge license
authorizes the holder to sell alcoholic beverages to a
registered overnight guest or off-duty staff of the
lodge for consumption on the licensed premises or in
conjunction with purchased outdoor recreation
activities provided by the licensee. An outdoor
recreation lodge license may not be transferred.
(b) The biennial fee for an outdoor recreation
lodge license is $1,250.
(c) In this section, "outdoor recreation lodge"
means a licensed business that provides overnight
accommodations and meals, is primarily involved in
offering opportunities for persons to engage in
outdoor recreation activities and has a minimum of two
guest rooms.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the value of the
licenses. Representative Wool clarified that the licenses
were not separate from beverage dispensary licenses, and if
the business was sold the license would have to remain at
the same address. He was uncertain of the sale price.
Representative Kawasaki was confused because of the number
of different types of licenses. He asked if all were
considered beverage dispensary licenses and whether the
tourism dispensary license was not limited to caps that
were currently assessed per community for other beverage
dispensary licenses. Representative Wool replied in the
affirmative. He affirmed that there were many kinds of
beverage dispensary licenses and agreed it was confusing.
^PUBLIC TESTIMONY
3:39:11 PM
DEBBIE CARY, SELF, NINILCHIK (via teleconference),
supported the legislation. She owned one of the licenses in
question. She was a bar owner and operated her
establishment for 28 years; the license was originally
issued in 1963. She argued that the 40-room update was not
possible on the Kenai Peninsula due to lack of supporting
infrastructure such as wells and septic systems. She
related that her business served her community by providing
a meeting place, hosting weddings and funerals. She had
personally provided her services for fund raisers as a way
of "giving back" to the community.
3:41:17 PM
NANCY TRUMP, LATITUDE 62 LODGE, MATANUSKA SUSITNA BOROUGH
(via teleconference), had owned her establishment since May
1986. She was not just a bar but a full-service motel,
restaurant, and bar. She characterized her business as a
"town meeting place" and hosted weddings, birthday parties,
baby showers, and much more. The location was near an
elementary school, which enabled the lodge to be listed as
a safe place for school evacuation. She operated year
around and employed 15 to 20 people. She maintained that it
would be difficult to stay in business without the
grandfathered license. She thanked members for their
support.
3:43:12 PM
ALLEN CHOY, AL'S ALASKAN INN, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in favor of the legislation and
provided a history of his business. He explained that his
father moved to Anchorage in 1956 and at the time there was
a severe lack of housing. Anchorage had no hotels south of
13th Avenue. He believed the tourism dispensary license was
provided as an incentive. His father opened the business in
1964 then called the Candle Inn. He spoke to the 10-room
requirement and explained how it was changed based on
population after Atlantic Richfield Company discovered oil
on the North Slope in 1968. He agreed with the change and
did not want a "bar on every corner." He indicated that the
intent of the legislature in 1985 was to grandfather in the
prior tourism licensees. He believed that the ABC board
"misinterpreted" the intent of the law by deciding that the
pre-1985 license holders were currently non-compliant. He
argued that it was not economically feasible to add the
rooms in Anchorage. Currently in Anchorage there were
hotels on every corner. He emphasized that the
legislature's intent in 1985 was for the pre-1985 licensees
to be grandfathered in.
3:50:17 PM
PETE HANSON, ALASKA CHARR, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
favored HB 301. He noted that the bill supported long-
standing business. He believed that the intent of the
legislature wanted grandfathered protection for the
existing business and "the unintended ambiguity" existed in
the law. He thanks the legislature for it consideration.
3:51:18 PM
Co-Chair Seaton CLOSED Public Testimony.
He reviewed the agenda for the following day. He also
indicated that amendments for HB 301 were due to Co-Chair
Foster's office by Friday, February 22 at 5:00 P.M.