Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/01/2018 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio
and video
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB176 | |
| HB301 | |
| HCR10 || HB168 | |
| HB110 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 301 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 38 | 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."
9:22:23 AM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the bill was last heard in
committee on February 20, 2018.
Representative Wilson had asked Legislative Legal Services
whether the grandfathering provision only applied to the
businesses included in the bill. She related that the
attorneys stated that the bill would allow other businesses
to be grandfathered in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, SPONSOR, was not aware of the
interpretation. He understood that the bill only applied to
the 34 businesses that operated before the 1985 change in
the law.
Representative Wilson favored the bill. She indicated that
she wanted to bring the broader interpretation to his
attention. She clarified that the bill did not only
grandfather in the specified businesses; if the laws
changed in the future, grandfathering could apply. Under
current law the bill only applied to the 34 businesses
addressed, but if the alcohol laws were rewritten the bill
would pertain to any businesses in a similar situation.
Representative Wool could not speak to a future rewrite of
the law and how it would impact currently operating
businesses. He hoped that a future rewrite would include
grandfathering clauses for businesses that abided by the
law. He thought HB 301 was specific to the time when the
room requirement changed. He thought Ms. McConnell [Erika
McConnell, Director, ABC Board] could provide additional
information. Representative Wilson wanted the legislature
to be cognizant of the effects on businesses when laws were
changed. Representative Wool thought that Representative
Wilson spoke in the "hypothetical". He remembered that when
the drinking age was changed businesses were not
grandfathered in and thought the matter was relative.
Representative Wilson asked if the laws were rewritten
whether the grandfathering clause would apply to businesses
in a similar situation in the future.
ERIKA MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, ABC BOARD (via teleconference),
replied that she agreed with the interpretation. She
believed it was a positive outcome. She pointed to page 4,
lines 14 through 23 of the draft Committee Substitute (CS)
and read from the following:
(2) the renewal or transfer of ownership of a beverage
dispensary or restaurant or eating place license
issued under (1) of this subsection if the
(A) holder of the license operates a hotel, motel,
resort, or similar business relating to the tourist
trade that
(i) has a dining facility on the licensed premises or
kitchen facilities in a majority of its rental rooms;
and (ii) maintains at least the minimum number of
rental rooms that the hotel, motel, resort, or similar
business had at the time of initial licensure or that
were required at the time of initial licensure; or
Ms. McConnell explained that the language was important and
protected businesses in communities that grew overtime and
was now required to have more rooms to obtain the license.
The language in the bill stated that the business only had
to maintain the number of rooms that were required at the
time of initial licensure. Representative Wilson wanted to
protect people's investments and was merely informing the
committee of the broader interpretation of the bill.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Knopp in the
audience.
9:29:33 AM
Vice-Chair Gara read the previously published zero fiscal
note, FN1 (CED) from the Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development (DCCED) allocated to the Alcohol
and Marijuana Control Office that did not anticipate fiscal
impact from this legislation.
Representative Kawasaki commented that the committee had
been working with Title 4 and how AMCO worked. He was
contacted by the Riverfront Theatre, Fairbanks Drama
Association and relayed that the theatre was open for 54
hours and paid $2,475. for the license, secured the
signature of the licensees 66 times, and filed 435 pages of
paper work for the 54 hours. He deduced that on a good
night they made $200 and the ABC fees alone were $70. He
acknowledged that the bill was not the vehicle to address
the issue and just wanted to make the statement on record.
He believed the costs and paperwork were a big bureaucratic
burden for a small non-profit organization.
9:31:48 AM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 301(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 301(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN1(CED).
9:32:34 AM
AT EASE
9:33:33 AM
RECONVENED
hb38
HOUSE BILL NO. 38
"An Act relating to the calculation and payment of
workers' compensation benefits in the case of
permanent partial impairment; relating to the
calculation and payment of workers' compensation death
benefits payable to a child of an employee where there
is no surviving spouse; relating to the calculation
and payment of workers' compensation death benefits
for an employee without a surviving spouse or child;
relating to notice of workers' compensation death
benefits; and providing for an effective date."
9:33:37 AM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that HB 38 was previously heard in
committee on February 15, 2018.
MEGAN HOLLAND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,
9:34:49 AM
MARIE MARX, DIRECTOR, WORKER'S COMPENSATION DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, reviewed
the new zero fiscal note by the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DLWD). She indicated that the bill
would not change the way the division administers workers
compensation; therefore, there is no direct fiscal impact
to the department.
Representative Wilson was assuming the other fiscal notes
were no longer applicable. Ms. Marx relayed that there were
two other fiscal notes: One from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and one from the Department of
Administration (DOA). She elaborated that the benefits and
costs associated with the legislation were paid for by
insurance companies and self-insured employers; the state
was self-insured. Through DOA's Division of Risk Management
the costs would be passed on to state agencies through
increased personal services benefits costs including future
year budget salary and benefit adjustments.
Representative Wilson was concerned, and she was working
diligently on the issue. She believed that a "different
type of punishment" other than financial should apply if
the state had an employer that ignored safety to the point
that someone was permanently injured or killed. She wanted
to find a solution that did not "break the system."
Vice-Chair Gara shared a similar concerned as
Representative Wilson.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 38(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED.
Representative Pruitt spoke to his objection. He believed
that the bill compensated "beyond the dependents" of the
injured worker. He suggested that the state already had
such high costs and altered the longstanding "concept" of
workers compensation and how it worked; compensate the
injured worker and their dependents and was now including
the estate.
Vice-Chair Gara relayed a story from personal work
experience. He thought the level of compensation was so low
it was almost insulting. He believed that the guilty party
should pay for injury or death. He supported the bill.
9:41:09 AM
Representative Pruitt was concerned that the negligent
party was not paying into the system. He agreed that there
was no way to put a price on a life. He thought the fault
of the bill was that it did not hold the person that was
negligent responsible; the system paid for the injury or
loss. He asserted that that was Representative Wilson's
point. He emphasized that the legislation did not address
the concern properly.
Representative Wilson wondered whether changing the law
would inhibit a parent or someone "outside the system" from
suing the responsible party.
9:44:00 AM
Vice-Chair Gara responded to Representative Wilson'
question. He explained that the worker's comp system was
exclusive, and the benefit was solely tied to the worker.
The parent currently lacked any recourse in court. He
responded to Representative Pruitt's remarks and indicated
that if an employer negligently killed a worker in an
accident the parent was not entitled to anything if the
employee had no spouse or children. The bill made the
employer responsible under the workers' compensation system
and corrected the issue.
Co-Chair Seaton voiced that the issues were conflated in
the committee process. He understood that one issue was to
hold the grossly negligent party responsible, which was not
the subject of the bill. The current legislation dealt with
the workers' comp insurance and who was covered. He
summarized that if an 18-year-old lost his life on the job
and had no dependents or spouse the parents would not
receive compensation and that scenario was the issue. He
offered that Worker's Compensation covered funeral costs.
He hoped the two issues could be separated. He thought the
other problems could be solved in future legislation.
Representative Pruitt MAINTAINED OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Wilson, Pruitt, Thomson, Tilton
Representative Guttenberg was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6/4).
CSHB 38(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with an "amend"
recommendation and with a new zero fiscal note by the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, a new fiscal
impact note by the Office of the Governor, and a new fiscal
impact note by Department of Administration.
9:47:14 AM
AT EASE
9:49:08 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB110 2.19.18 Letters of Support.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Sectional Analysis 2.15.18.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Sponsor Statement 2.15.18.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB110(L&C) Explanation of Changes 2.16.18.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 168-Sectional Analysis-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 168 |
| State v ALIVE Voluntary summary and headnotes-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 168 |
| HB 168-Leg Research-Meetings-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 168 |
| HB 168 Sponsor Statement-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 168 |
| HCR 10-Uniform Rule 20-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HCR 10 |
| HCR 10-Sponsor Statement-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HCR 10 |
| HB110 - Support.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Support Letter Gibbs.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 301 02.28.2018 DCCED HFIN Followup.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 301 |