Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/07/2017 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 | |
| SB6 | |
| HB16 | |
| SB45 | |
| SB78 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 78 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 6
"An Act relating to industrial hemp; and relating to
controlled substances."
9:08:29 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon offered a brief history of previous
committee discussions of bill. She listed that available
invited testimony.
9:09:47 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop discussed the fiscal notes. He noted that
the four fiscal notes were from the Department of Public
Safety (DPS), Department of Law (DOL), Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED), and
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). He pointed out
that there would be one note DNR with fiscal impact of $25
thousand for an RSA with LAW to assist in drafting
regulations.
Co-Chair MacKinnon observed the lack of support documents
to justify the need for $25,000. She read the analysis from
FN9 and reiterated that the note was short on backup
analysis.
9:11:35 AM
ROB CARTER, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE, PALMER (via
teleconference), explained that the estimated $25,000 had
been determined by LAW. He said that DNR would draft the
regulations, which would then be interpreted and vetted by
LAW. He relayed that the money would go to LAW and that any
further questions should be directed to that department.
9:12:47 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether there was anyone from LAW
available to speak to the fiscal note.
Co-Chair MacKinnon proposed to zero-out the fiscal note.
9:13:12 AM
Senator Micciche asked whether there was a way to change
the note to receipt authority, at a lower number.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that $10,000 in designated
general fund receipts could be more appropriate proposal.
Senator Micciche believed that there would be some cost and
that $10,000 would be appropriate.
Co-Chair MacKinnon agreed with Senator Micciche. She
thought that zeroing out the note altogether might get the
department's attention to attend future hearings on the
bill.
9:14:13 AM
Senator von Imhof said that when the bill was heard in the
Senate Resources Committee, there had bee a zero DNR note
attached. She understood that the $25,000 had been recently
added.
BUDDY WHITT, STAFF, SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES, answered in the
affirmative. He stated that the latest iteration of the
bill, out of Senate Judiciary Committee, changed wording
from "may" to "shall" establish regulations, which resulted
in the new fiscal note.
Senator von Imhof relayed that the earlier conversation in
committee had reflected that the change in regulation could
be absorbed by the department.
Mr. Whitt understood that there had been some additional
regulatory stipulations added to the bill in the Senate
Judiciary Committee. He relayed that changing the wording
from "may" to "shall" establish regulations, had resulted
in the new note.
9:16:03 AM
Senator von Imhof wondered about the possible impact in one
year's time if the committee changed the fiscal note to
zero and then revisited the issue at a later date.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained the path that the fiscal note
would travel through the bill hearing process. She shared
that LAW was online to defend the note.
9:16:59 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop estimated that the fiscal note
represented approximately 150 work hours by LAW to draft
the regulations.
Co-Chair MacKinnon reiterated that there was not much
backup available to justify the $25,000 note.
9:17:52 AM
JOAN WILSON, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), stated that the issue of separating hemp
from marijuana and the issues that stemmed from both,
criminal and civil, were new territory for the department.
She said that a pilot program would be established by the
bill, also the protocol on how seeds and growers would be
approved. She added that a way to monitor sees and growers
and determining how the Department of Agriculture would be
involved in the processes was unchartered territory. She
shared that the fiscal note reflected the past cost for the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for legislative
regulatory projects. She explained that it had been a long
time since DNR had visited these past costs, that the
estimate they gave had not been helpful. She relayed that
LAW had looked back
9:20:42 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop asked how many other states practiced
industrial hemp production.
Mr. Whitt recalled that there were 31 states that had some
sort of industrial hemp program.
Vice-Chair Bishop suggested that the department research
what was done in other states.
9:21:26 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether there were resources
available to LAW to assist in the development of the
regulations.
Ms. Wilson mentioned Colorado, Kentucky, Vermont, and
Maine. She relayed that she was unaware whether the laws in
those states reflected what Alaska was planning.
9:22:35 AM
Mr. Whitt stated that he would like to double check his
previous statement that 31 other states had industrial hemp
programs.
Co-Chair MacKinnon solicited conversation on the fiscal
note. She referred to public testimony that had suggested
that other states had not been able to pay for the programs
with program receipts. She noted that supplemental requests
were not ideal and that the department should submit a
fiscal note that reflected the maximum amount of money that
could be spent to implement any program going forward.
9:24:33 AM
Senator Micciche stated that he was amendable to changing
the fiscal note to $10,000 in DGF. He did not think that
the state could afford to fund the regulations. He thought
that the regulations for marijuana could be applied to
industrial hemp.
9:25:00 AM
Senator von Imhof expressed agreement with the previous two
speakers. She added that industrial hemp could provide
economic opportunity to the state and that a $10,000
investment seemed reasonable.
9:25:43 AM
AT EASE
9:28:16 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon offered further clarification on
changing the fiscal note. She amended the note to reflect
the $10,000 from DGF.
9:29:19 AM
Mr. Whitt clarified that 30 states had legalized industrial
hemp and 16 states that had set up pilot programs.
9:30:27 AM
AT EASE
9:31:28 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that the DGF code was 1005 and
that a new fiscal note with appropriate classifications
would be forthcoming.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to report CSSB 6(JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 6(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and with one new fiscal impact note by the
Senate Finance Committee for the Department of Natural
Resources; and with four previously published zero fiscal
notes: FN5(DPS), FN6(LAW), FN7(CED), and FN8(DPS).
9:32:17 AM
AT EASE
9:34:45 AM
RECONVENED