Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/15/2016 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| SB145 | |
| SB147 | |
| SB1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 1
"An Act prohibiting smoking in certain places;
relating to education on the smoking prohibition; and
providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that that committee had not
had an opportunity to discuss SB 1 the previous day after
public testimony was closed. She mentioned working with the
sponsor to produce a Senate Finance Committee Substitute.
She relayed that there had been several issues raised the
previous day. She wondered if there were general comments
from committee members.
9:28:05 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon conveyed that Chuck Kopp (staff to Vice-
Chair Micciche) had met with her staff to discuss possible
changes to the legislation through amendment or committee
substitute. She asked for Mr. Kopp to highlight the
possible changes and convey feedback from the subcommittee
on the bill.
CHUCK KOPP, STAFF, SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, addressed Co-
Chair MacKinnon's question about proposed changes to the
bill. He highlighted that the bill sponsor wanted to put
the Tobacco Education and Compliance Program back within
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS). He
detailed that the program (currently under Department of
Environmental Conservation) had historically been housed
within DHSS, and was listed as one of its statutory duties.
He continued that the bill would use a tobacco compliance
program approach to enforcement rather than a law
enforcement approach.
Mr. Kopp furthered that another possible amendment
addressed exemption for residences used by owners who might
be in their last stages of life. He referred to version S
of the bill, page 2 line 12, which could be changed to "in
a building or residence that is the site of a business at
which the care of adults is provided on a fee for service
basis." He clarified that the potential amendment would
only prohibit smoking if the residence was the site of a
business at which care is provided, rather than in a
private home where a person was receiving care. He added
that the matter had been brought to the sponsor's attention
by the state long-term care Ombudsman, as well as hospice
organizations.
9:31:08 AM
Mr. Kopp addressed another proposed change to the bill, on
page 2, line 22:
[Smoking is prohibited outdoors within…]
(A) 50 feet of an entrance to a health care facility;
He explained that by deleting item (A), the distance
qualifier, another line (page 2, line 25) would apply,
which clarified the prohibition of smoking within 20 feet
of a place where smoking was otherwise prohibited. He
continued that healthcare facilities were already included
under line 9 on the same page of the bill, and that the
language was duplicative. He added that by deleting the 50-
foot distance prohibition on smoking, it would make it
easier for residents in nursing homes or long term care to
access a smoking area.
Mr. Kopp referred to page 4, line 15 of the bill, which
pertained to "notice of prohibition," through which
business were required to have signage informing that
smoking is prohibited by law. He shared that the Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities had brought an
amendment to the sponsor that would make the prohibitory
signage more expansive, to include the words "no puffin"
with a picture of a horned or tufted puffin. The change
would allow for the usage of existing signs rather than
having to produce new signs. He added that the sponsor had
encouraged use of a downloadable/printable graphic from the
internet, rather than incurring additional expenditures for
metal signage.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked about the "no puffin" sign, and
referred to the stupidity of criminals. She thought that
using the language in question might cause confusion, and
wondered if there was other language being used that could
be included in the description.
Mr. Kopp referred to page 4, line 18 of the bill:
(1) reads "Smoking Prohibited by Law--Maximum Fine
$50"; and
Mr. Kopp clarified that line 18 was standard prohibition
language for signage, and other bill language regarding
signage allowances was more universal in nature.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if anyone had testified regarding
the puffin bird.
Mr. Kopp thought the "no puffin" sign was a piece of
Alaskana that had worked its way into the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon indicated that she understood.
9:35:17 AM
Mr. Kopp continued discussing proposed changes to the bill.
He appreciated that the chair of the previous committee had
amended the bill to lower the fine from $100 to $50, which
the sponsor thought was appropriate. He continued that
there was a preference for going back to the original
version of the bill with regard to keeping smoking non-
compliance a civil issue rather than a law enforcement
issue. The original bill would allow the commissioner of
DHSS to partner with another agency (Department of Public
Safety) to enforce the smoking prohibition. He noted that
the same configuration was used in a spice prevention
program and other items. He reiterated that enforcing the
bill through citation was preferred, and emphasized the
importance of the tobacco compliance program (which was
largely voluntary) rather than getting the judiciary system
involved.
Mr. Kopp noted that the effective date of the bill needed
to be amended.
Senator Dunleavy asked for clarification regarding marine
vessels and the prohibition of smoking.
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that marine vessels were
addressed on page 2, line 15 of the bill.
Senator Dunleavy asked if enclosed fish processors were
exempt from the smoking ban.
Mr. Kopp clarified that fish processors were short-based
fisheries vessels, and enclosed working environments, and
therefore would be subject to a smoking prohibition.
Senator Dunleavy asked about a hypothetical business in a
residence in which the proprietors smoked.
Mr. Kopp stated that currently an office such as the one
Senator Dunleavy mentioned would qualify as a workplace and
be subject to the smoking prohibition.
Senator Olson asked about vessels venturing outside of
state waters, and wondered if they would be exempt from the
statute.
Mr. Kopp indicated that state law would apply to state
waters, and beyond state waters, federal laws would apply.
He thought that waters within two miles were considered
under the purview of the state.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought Senator Bishop had indicated
state waters exceeded to three miles.
9:39:24 AM
AT EASE
9:39:36 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Dunleavy asked about a hypothetical situation in
which small a guiding business transported a hunter in an
airplane.
Mr. Kopp deferred the answer to the Legislative Legal
Department. He thought that if the situation was covered by
the bill, it would be under page 1, lines 8 and 9; that
discussed a vehicle used for public transportation. He was
not sure that what Senator Dunleavy described would qualify
as public transportation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon directed attention to a definition of
prohibited area listed on page 2 line 10:
(5) in a vehicle that is a place of employment;
Co-Chair MacKinnon interpreted that the bill language would
include the hypothetical scenario Senator Dunleavy had
described.
Mr. Kopp concurred, but agreed to verify to get a
definitive answer.
Senator Bishop asked if there was a possible amendment that
would be offered to page 2, line 12:
(7) in a residence at which the care of adults is
provided on a fee-for-service basis;
Mr. Kopp answered in the affirmative.
9:41:10 AM
Senator Bishop asked about in-home health care providers,
and wondered if an amendment would allow the care providers
to smoke in the residence.
Mr. Kopp stated that it would be a personal care
attendant's decision as to whether to step outside if a
resident was smoking. He clarified that the amendment being
considered would allow individuals to smoke if the
residence was not defined a place of business. He continued
that the intent of the amendment was to allow smokers to
smoke in their own home.
Senator Bishop wanted clarification as to the employment of
a personal care attendant.
Mr. Kopp clarified that most personal care attendants were
part of care groups or larger providers, but there were
also single entities.
Senator Hoffman asked if bed and breakfast establishments
were exempt or covered under this legislation.
Mr. Kopp did not have the information, and agreed to look
in to it. He pondered that bed and breakfasts were a place
of business.
Senator Hoffman asked for the bill reference on the topic
of bed and breakfast establishments.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that there was discussion of
hotels and motels starting on page 2, line 8 of the bill.
Mr. Kopp referred to page 2, line 6, suggesting that if a
bed and breakfast was defined as a place of employment, it
could be considered a prohibited area.
SB 1 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the upcoming schedule.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB145 Governor Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SFIN 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 145 |
| SB145 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 145 |
| SB 147 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 147 |
| SB147 Governor Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SFIN 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 147 |