Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/12/2022 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 | |
| SB9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 9(FIN)
"An Act relating to alcoholic beverages; relating to
the regulation of manufacturers, wholesalers, and
retailers of alcoholic beverages; relating to
licenses, endorsements, and permits involving
alcoholic beverages; relating to common carrier
approval to transport or deliver alcoholic beverages;
relating to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board;
relating to offenses involving alcoholic beverages;
amending Rule 17(h), Alaska Rules of Minor Offense
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
9:06:38 AM
Co-Chair Merrick indicated the committee would review the
fiscal notes.
9:07:17 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, reviewed
Fiscal Note 6 by the Alaska Judiciary System with a control
code of KSXET. The fiscal note reflected the need for one
part-time attorney who would be responsible for
implementing the new regulations proposed by the bill. She
explained that the bill would change the penalty category
and would specify the penalty that would be imposed upon
conviction of alcohol related offenses. There were about 63
offenses related to alcohol that would be changed from low-
level misdemeanors to violations. The court would need to
put all violations on a schedule so that individuals could
receive citations for violations and resolve the offense
without a mandatory court appearance. The process was time
consuming and required attention to detail, which was why
the need for a part-time attorney was identified. The
attorney would be needed for a three-month period of time
during fiscal year (FY)23 to accomplish the tasks.
Representative LeBon asked whether the attorney would be
working outside the court system or if they would be on
staff and working in the office.
Ms. Mead responded that the reason for the fiscal note was
that the existing attorney staff was stretched thin and had
been for the last several years. The part-time attorney
would be on staff.
9:09:37 AM
ROBERT HEIDE, PROGRAM OFFICER, DIVISION OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and SOCIAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), reviewed Fiscal Note 10 by the Department
of Health and Social Services (DHSS) with control code
GCMOZ. The fiscal note had a zero fiscal impact because the
bill would not necessarily influence criminal offenses.
Although the division would experience referrals, the bill
would not have a fiscal or programmatic impact on the
division.
Representative Carpenter asked about the second paragraph
of the fiscal note. He read from it as follows:
Under existing statute, juvenile offenders cited for
these offenses are referred to the Division of
Juvenile Justice. Referral to the division for these
offenses is rare.
Representative Carpenter asked if this meant that there
were not many citations for the listed offenses.
Mr. Heide replied that many of the offenses would not
escalate to the point of referral to the Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Apart from the misdemeanor offense
of delivery of alcohol to a person under 21 years of age,
most other offenses were so rare that it was possible that
DJJ would not even have a record of the offenses occurring.
9:12:07 AM
MELISSA DUMAS, ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS MANAGER, DIVISION
OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS and PROFESSIONAL LICENSING,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(via teleconference), reviewed Fiscal Note 9 by the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED) with control code VRIFW. The fiscal note had a zero
fiscal impact because the division did not anticipate any
associated costs.
9:12:55 AM
NICOLE REYNOLDS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE (via teleconference), reviewed Fiscal Note 7 by
the Department of Revenue (DOR) with control code MLTHA.
She indicated the fiscal note crafted and determined to be
indeterminate for the prior version of SB 9. Since the
fiscal note was submitted, there had been some amendments
that changed the winery direct shipment license to a
manufacturer direct shipment license. She explained that
DOR did not submit a new fiscal note to reflect the changes
because the fiscal note remained indeterminate, and the
cost would not change. The fiscal note was indeterminate
because there was not sufficient data on the amount of
alcohol shipped to Alaska. However, she expected that
extending the excise tax would have a positive effect on
tax revenue beginning in the second half of FY 24. There
would be a small cost associated with the administrative
burden of the change that the Tax Division would absorb.
Representative Josephson understood that if he were in
Sonoma County, California and wanted a case of wine, he
would pay a California tax on it. He wondered if he shipped
the same case of wine from California to his home in
Anchorage whether he would be required to pay an additional
Alaska tax.
Ms. Reynolds responded that the tax would be paid by the
holder of a manufacturer direct shipment license. If a
person purchased wine out of state and shipped it to
Alaska, the individual would not be required to pay an
additional tax in Alaska unless they were the holder of the
license.
9:15:47 AM
RICK HELMS, ALCOHOL AND MARIJUANA CONTROL OFFICE,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(via teleconference), was available for questions about
Fiscal Note 8 by DCCED with the control code OCWHW.
9:16:53 AM
AT EASE
9:17:20 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE PRESIDENT PETER MICCICHE, SPONSOR, thanked members
for hearing the bill again. He asked members to remember
that he had worked diligently with all parties to come to a
balanced compromise. A robust steering team comprised of
175 people from diverse backgrounds worked together to
craft SB 9.
9:19:37 AM
Co-Chair Merrick MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-LS0124\W.12
(Dunmire, 3/17/22) (copy on file):
Page 120, line 25:
Delete "sec. 174"
Insert "sec, 175"
Page 125, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 172. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT. Section 162 of this Act takes
effect only if sec. 162 of this Act the two-thirds
majority vote of each house required by art. IV, sec.
15, Constitution of the State of Alaska."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 125, line 20:
Delete "secs. 172 and 173"
Insert "secs. 173 and 174"
Representative Wool OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the amendment. She explained that
the amendment aimed to clarify language regarding the court
rule change included in the bill, which had a higher vote
threshold than the rest of the bill. She asked Mr. Andrew
Dunmire with Legislative Legal Services whether he wanted
to comment.
9:20:11 AM
ANDREW DUNMIRE, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), indicated that Nancy Meade, general
counsel of the Alaska Court System, had recommended the
change. It was a technical conforming change to ensure that
the bill remained in line with the Constitution of the
State of Alaska. It would have no substantive impact on the
bill but would simply inform legislators that there was a
rule change that would require a higher vote threshold.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if there were further questions.
Representative Wool WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
9:21:19 AM
Representative Rasmussen MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 32-
LS0123\W.25 (Dunmire, 3/31/22) (copy on file):
Page 31, line 25:
Delete "nine"
Insert "18"
Page 31, line 26:
Delete "27"
Insert "108"
Page 31, line 31, following "AS 04.09.750(b)":
Insert "; or
(4) annually produce more than 300,000 barrels
in total of brewed beverages or more than 50,000
proof gallons in total of distilled spirits"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
9:21:40 AM
AT EASE
9:22:10 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Rasmussen explained Amendment 2. The
amendment added some reasonable sideboards to the
manufacturer direct shipment license that would allow the
manufacturer to ship directly to the customer and bypass
the wholesaler and retailer. It was based on feedback from
wholesalers and retailers that it could become problematic
and sought to strike a compromise.
Senator Micciche commented that the inability to ship
directly to a customer would complicate the process for
individuals that were part of wine clubs. He supported the
amendment. He thought that the amendment would cover wine
club shipments and would allow for shipment of two cases
per sale and 12 cases per year. This was a change from one
case per sale and three cases per year.
Representative Josephson highlighted the last two lines of
the amendment regarding annual production of brewed
beverages. The biggest craft brewery in the state was the
Alaskan Brewing Company which produced 100,000 barrels
annually. He asked why the amount would need to be 300,000
barrels per year.
Senator Micciche replied that one of the fears was that
large national distillers like Budweiser would try to
compete in the state. It was desirable to prevent outside
organizations from participating and the language in the
amendment clarified that it was applicable only to Alaska
companies.
Representative Josephson asked if it would allow for growth
in the industry.
Senator Micciche responded that it would allow for growth
while preventing larger outside entities from
participating.
Representative LeBon asked how many bottles there were in a
case of wine.
Senator Micciche responded that a case of wine would be 12
bottles. The amendment would allow for 24 bottles to be
shipped per month and 12 cases per year.
Representative Josephson asked whether this would change
anything for dry communities within the state.
Senator Micciche answered that it would not change anything
for dry communities.
9:26:35 AM
Representative Wool asked if the bill allowed for 12 cases
to be sent per year, per winery, or per company. He
wondered if an individual could make a purchase from
another company and exceed the limit.
Senator Micciche nodded.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
9:27:41 AM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 25, 32-
LS0124\W.9 (Dunmire, 3/14/22) (copy on file):
Page 49, lines 23 - 24:
Delete "or silent auction"
Insert ",silent, or online auction"
Page 49, lines 25 - 26
Delete "or silent auction"
Insert ",silent, or online auction"
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon reviewed the amendment. He explained
that non-profits in the state could sell wine through
silent auctions. He noted that SB 9 would move that
framework into statute and referred to it as an "alcoholic
beverage auction permit." There were fundraisers in
Fairbanks that offered wine baskets as auction items that
moved to an online auction format during COVID-19. There
was concern that "silent auction" may not cover online
auctions as well.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 25 was ADOPTED.
9:29:58 AM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 26, 32-
LS0124\W.36 (Dunmire, 4/6/22) (copy on file). [Note: due to
the length of the amendment it has not been included here.
See copy on file for details].
Representative Wool OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon reviewed the amendment. He explained
that it would allow a municipality's local legislative body
to pass a resolution petitioning the Alcohol and Beverage
Control (ABC) Board for additional brewery, winery, or
distillery retail licenses if a community had reached its
license capacity. The bill already included this feature
for restaurants and other eateries and the amendment would
add it for the aforementioned places of businesses as well.
In considering the allowance of additional licenses, the
ABC Board would need to consider impacts on public health,
public safety, promotion of a competitive and dynamic
marketplace, and promotion of economic development and
diversification. A decision would have to be made within 90
days of receiving an application, and a denial would have
to be accompanied by an explanation of the objective
factors that contributed to the decision.
Representative Josephson asked whether a denial by the
board would be subject to further litigation.
Representative LeBon explained that the intent was that the
ABC Board would give direction to the applicant. The board
would not simply deny the request but would provide
instruction on the changes that would need to be made to
receive an approval on the request in the future.
Representative Josephson asked how the current system
worked for communities to request an additional alcohol
license when already at capacity.
Senator Micciche responded that a community would have to
grow its population to qualify for another license or the
interested party would have to purchase an existing license
from a community member at a likely high price.
Representative Josephson indicated that he recently read an
editorial that was in favor of the bill and of putting some
limits on opportunities to purchase and consume alcohol. He
asked whether the amendment would be disruptive of
implementing the limitations.
Senator Micciche responded that the population of the
borough could be included when attempting to bring in
additional licenses for tasting rooms. The amendment
eliminated first-class protection for communities that had
the ability to manage additional licensees. He wanted to
ensure that additional licenses were not provided in
communities where additional public safety support was not
available.
9:35:55 AM
AT EASE
9:42:13 AM
RECONVENED
Representative LeBon WITHDREW Amendment 26.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated the amendment would be rolled to
the bottom of the amendment packet.
9:42:27 AM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 27,
32-0124\W.33 (Dunmire, 4/1/22) (copy on file):
Page 31, line 23:
Delete "4.5"
Insert "9"
Page 31, line 28:
Delete "13.5"
Insert "27"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon reviewed the amendment. He explained
that it would restore the annual volume limit for distilled
spirits and brewed beverages to the amounts passed out of
the Alaska State Senate by direct shipment by state
manufacturers. It would allow for up to ten liters of
distilled spirits or 27 gallons of brewed beverages to be
purchased in a calendar year by direct shipment from the
holder of a manufacturer's license. He thought that direct
shipment was a good opportunity for in-state manufacturers
to reach customers. For example, if tourists were to
purchase local alcohol, the manufacturer would be able to
ship the product to the tourists' home address rather than
them having to travel with bottles in their luggage.
Representative Josephson asked if Representative LeBon knew
why a previous committee had amended the number downward.
Representative LeBon responded that he did not know but
perhaps the sponsor did.
Senator Micciche offered that Department of Public Safety
(DPS) was concerned. He relayed that wine was not really a
concern for the department but sprits were. He suggested
that if a large family was involved with bootlegging, they
would be able to obtain a large quantity of spirits. He did
not know, without consulting his team, whether the
amendment would be favored. He thought doubling the
quantity of allowable spirits was likely the main issue.
Representative Josephson asked for clarification that DPS
did not like the change.
Senator Micciche responded that DPS and the Division of
Public Health were always concerned about the flow of
alcohol into rural Alaska in particular.
Representative Wool thought the change in being able to
direct ship alcohol was a significant change. He did not
oppose direct shipment but agreed that wine was different
than hard alcohol. He suggested that nine liters of hard
alcohol was a significant quantity and could likely be a
problem. He agreed with increasing the wine amounts but did
not agree with increasing the hard alcohol amounts. He did
not support the amendment.
9:48:40 AM
Representative LeBon appreciated the comments from members
and the bill sponsor. He acknowledged that it was unlikely
that beer would be shipped and that distilled product was
most likely to be shipped. He reiterated that he had heard
from businesses in Fairbanks that there was a demand for
the ability for visitors to buy locally produced product
and have it shipped to their homes.
Representative Wool commented that a visitor could
currently ship up to 4.5 liters to their home out-of-state
as long as their home state allowed for it. He asked if the
businesses in Fairbanks had stated that 4.5 liters would be
too low.
Representative LeBon responded that the input he had
received was that 9 liters would be better than 4.5 liters.
Vice-Chair Ortiz wondered if the committee would be open to
keeping the limits for spirits and changing the limits for
wine.
Representative LeBon responded that that main purpose of
the amendment was to address distilled spirits.
9:51:35 AM
AT EASE
9:52:00 AM
RECONVENED
Representative LeBon indicated the focus of the amendment
was distilled spirits.
Co-Chair Merrick MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
27.
IN FAVOR: Carpenter, Edgmon, Johnson, Josephson, Ortiz,
Rasmussen, Merrick
OPPOSED: LeBon, Thompson, Wool
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 27 FAILED (3/7).
9:53:53 AM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 23, 32-
LS0124\W.34 (Dunmire, 4/2/22) (copy on file):
Page 23, line 16:
Delete "and AS 04.09.685"
Page 23, line 24:
Delete "10:00"
Insert "8:00"
Page 24, line 26:
Delete "and AS 04.09.685"
Page 25, line 2:
Delete "10:00"
Insert "8:00"
Page 25, line 31:
Delete "and AS 04.09.685"
Page 26, line 8:
Delete "10:00"
Insert "8:00"
Page 51, line 20 - 28:
Delete all material.
Page 71, line 25:
Delete "12,000"
Insert "3,000"
Page 72, line 10:
Delete "12,000"
Insert "3,000"
Page 72, line 26:
Delete "12,000"
Insert "3,000"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool reviewed the amendment. He indicated
that there had been many iterations of the bill over the
years. He shared that extending hours of tasting rooms from
8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. was a new suggested change and was
not in any of the previous versions of the bill. The
ability to ship alcohol directly to the consumer was also a
new change. The bill would make it possible for a
manufacturer of liquor to buy a bar license or a restaurant
license, making it conceivable for a manufacturer to hold
two separate licenses. Tasting rooms would be able to get
around restrictions by also having a bar license or
purchasing a restaurant eating place license (REPL), which
were options that he supported. Under current laws a person
could petition for more REPLs to be available from the
state. Breweries would also be able to buy the REPLs if
their food numbers were at least 50 percent of sales. This
would allow the establishments to stay open until 10:00
p.m. and have live entertainment until 11:00 p.m. The bill
allowed breweries to buy additional licenses and offered
extra privileges like staying open later. He did not know
what the repercussions of that would be, and he did not
think anyone knew.
Representative Wool explained that the amendment would
revert the bill back to the version it had been before it
had been heard by the Senate Finance Committee in 2020. He
recalled that prior to tasting rooms becoming legal in the
state, there was concern that the tasting rooms would
become de facto bars. He thought that this had indeed
happened, though he did not have a problem with it.
However, he thought that the ability for tasting rooms to
stay open later and to have live music would be too similar
to bars. He understood that there had been much discussion
with stakeholders and with the Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant
and Retailers Association (CHARR) and many people who
previously did not support the changes in the bill had
changed their minds and were now supportive.
Representative Wool WITHDREW Amendment 23.
10:03:37 AM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 22, 32-
LS0124\W.31 (Dunmire, 3/31/22) (copy on file):
Page 23, line 24:
Delete "10:00"
Insert "9:00"
Page 25, line 2:
Delete "10:00"
Insert "9:00"
Page 26, line 8:
Delete "10:00"
Insert "9:00"
Page 51, line 27:
Delete "10:00"
Insert "9:00"
Page 71, line 25:
Delete "12,000"
Insert "9,000"
Page 72, line 10:
Delete "12,000"
Insert "9,000"
Page 72, line 26:
Delete "12,000"
Insert "9,000"
Page 89, line 1:
Delete "10:00"
Insert "9:00"
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool reviewed the amendment. The amendment
would change the closing time to 9:00 p.m. and reduce the
population cap to 3,000. He thought his amendment was a
great compromise.
10:06:35 AM
Representative Rasmussen wondered if the committee could
hear the opinion of the bill sponsor. She thought the
amendment appeared to be a compromise and that patrons of a
bar were likely different than that of a brewery or tasting
room. She could easily see a family with children go to a
brewery or tasting room that sold food but did not think
families would frequent a bar with their children.
Senator Micciche indicated a compromise had already been
struck and it was reflected in the prior version of the
legislation. He thought that Amendment 22 represented a
"walk-back." The compromise came about to allow for people
to have a couple of hours in tasting rooms and breweries
after a food cutoff. He thought that the amendment would
make it more difficult for businesses to succeed. The
brewery industry had agreed to the population cap that was
in the bill because of the benefits that were included in
the package deal that was offered to them.
10:10:38 AM
Representative Rasmussen thanked the sponsor for his
response.
Representative Josephson asked for more information on food
regulations in establishments with a hard close.
Senator Micciche emphasized that a hard close was a hard
close. While breweries and tasting rooms had a soft close
at 8:00 p.m., they were able to stay open much later as a
restaurant and serve food. The amendment would close the
businesses completely at 9:00 p.m.
Representative Josephson asked about the population ratio
of one brewery for 9,000 people. He wondered if there could
be two breweries if there was 9,001 people.
Senator Micciche confirmed that there could be two
breweries if there were 9,001 people.
Representative Josephson did not understand the
significance of 9,000 and why that number was chosen.
Senator Micciche explained that currently the ratio was one
tasting room for every 3,000 people. The tasting rooms had
to close by 8:00 p.m. There were thousands of pages of
regulations that tried to "regulate fun" and an executive
director of an unnamed board was removed because of the
choice of regulations. He thought that the amendments
represented an old fear of what would happen if the rules
were relaxed. The traditional bar licensees acquiesced and
agreed to giving tasting rooms additional flexibility but
wanted to know how many there would be. It was an exchange
for a compromise. He did not think the value of licenses
had gone down as licenses were in higher demand because of
the market. Due to supply and demand, the value of licenses
had increased. There was a fear that by allowing tasting
rooms and breweries to buy a REPL as they grew, all
establishments in the future would become breweries. He did
not think this was true and thought that breweries and bars
had different clientele. He opposed the amendment because
it was trying to move the deal backwards and was working
against a new industry that deserved a chance.
Representative Josephson understood some of the nuances.
10:17:47 AM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 22.
Representative LeBon explained the amendment. He proposed a
soft close at 9:00 p.m. and a hard close at 9:30 p.m. He
would replace all instances of "9:00" in the amendment with
"9:30."
Representative Wool would support the conceptual amendment.
He suggested that if Representative LeBon was proposing a
last call at 9:00 p.m. and a hard close at 9:30 p.m., the
change would only be necessary on page 2, line 8 of
Amendment 22. The other instances of "9:00" already
referred to the last call.
Representative LeBon revised conceptual Amendment 1 and
proposed changing "9:00" to "9:30" on page 2, line 8 of
Amendment 22.
10:19:36 AM
AT EASE
10:20:50 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick asked Representative LeBon to restate the
amendment.
Representative LeBon explained that the hard close time
would be modified from 9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. The change
would occur on page 2, line 8 of Amendment 22.
Representative Josephson commented that he would look at
the amendment differently depending on the season. The
summer season in the state offered significant daylight at
night which should be taken into account. He was also
thinking of tourists that might want variability in their
purchasing abilities.
10:22:17 AM
AT EASE
10:24:56 AM
RECONVENNED
Representative Wool commented that it was not fun to sell
drinks up to the last call deadline and then have to kick
everyone out of an establishment. He did not think it was
common to enter an establishment after last call and order
food. He suggested that people who wanted to order food in
the later parts of the evening would go to a restaurant
that could also serve alcohol through a beverage dispensary
license (BLD). He argued that if breweries and tasting
rooms were allowed to stay open later and have live music,
they would be less inclined to buy a BDL. He thought that
it was an oversimplification that some people go to bars
and others go to breweries. He relayed that many people go
to bars to listen to live music or attend a live event, and
that was one of the privileges allowed by a BDL. He liked
the conceptual amendment and thought it was a compromise.
10:28:41 AM
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED to conceptual Amendment 1 for
discussion.
Representative Josephson asked for clarification that
Representative Wool wanted to reduce the opening hours for
tasting rooms and breweries from 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Representative Wool indicated the current law mandated a
close at 8:00 p.m. and he was expanding it to 9:00 p.m.,
not reducing it.
10:29:56 AM
Representative Rasmussen would be opposing the conceptual
amendment. She agreed with Representative Wool that there
were people who were patrons of both bars and breweries and
tasting rooms. However, she maintained that she would never
take her kids to a bar but would take them to a tasting
room or brewery. She did not think the hard close should be
at 9:30 p.m.
Representative Wool clarified that the amendment as amended
would allow the sale of alcohol up until 9:00 p.m. and
would allow 30 extra minutes for people to consume the
beverage before the establishment closed at 9:30 p.m. He
cautioned that a BDL was the license held by bars, but also
many restaurants held the same license. It was a misnomer
to say that a person would be going to a bar to eat instead
of calling it a restaurant, but both establishments would
be using the same license type.
Representative Josephson understood that the amendment
would expand current law and that the motivation for
reducing the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. was to
offer a fair playing field to BDLs. He asked about the
choice to reduce the population limits, which would afford
greater opportunity for the establishment of new breweries.
Representative Wool responded that he wanted to change the
population limit to 9,000 based on the previous number in a
past version of the legislation. He agreed that going up to
12,000 would hurt people who had not yet gotten into the
business, however they could not give much weight to
hypothetical businesses. It was a slight drop which he had
heard support for in public testimony. He suggested it was
a compromise and there were enough changes in the bill.
Representative Josephson was confused because the first
part of the amendment seemed to put guardrails around the
industry whereas the second portion afforded more
opportunities for the industry. He thought the amendment
seemed to contradict itself.
Representative Wool indicated the amendment combined two
separate issues. He had other amendments that focused on
each issue separately but had chosen to combine the issues
for expediency.
10:36:19 AM
Representative Carpenter was opposed to the amendment to
the amendment and to the original amendment. He had trouble
with the idea that a family with young children would be in
an establishment at 9:00 p.m. on a weekday having a final
drink before the family returns home. He asked if this
outcome was desired.
10:37:18 AM
Representative Johnson thought bars had negative
connotations, but she had also gone to breweries to which
she would not bring her children. She did not think that
just because an establishment could sell spirits it meant
that "immoral acts" were happening there. It had to be a
parent's personal responsibility to bring their children
home safely. She did not think it was fair to place this
responsibility on a business owner. There were many types
of establishments and it was not possible to say which
places were appropriate for children and which were not.
Representative Johnson indicated that she was in favor of
the amendment to the amendment. She thought it drew a small
distinction between different types of licenses.
Representative Rasmussen was trying to view the amendment
from the eyes of a tourist. There was more daylight in
Alaska in summer evenings than in many other states and it
was reasonable to expect that families might be out late.
She thought that it was the responsibility of a policy
maker to allow parents to have decision-making power. She
would be more comfortable with a 9:00 p.m. last call and
10:00 p.m. hard close respectively.
10:42:02 AM
Senator Micciche thought the discussion was getting silly.
He would acquiesce to the changes in the amendment to the
amendment if that meant the committee would move on. He
thought people would do whatever they could to restrict a
new industry. He would rather not change the bill and
thought it worked against the spirit of compromise.
Representative Wool reiterated that the amendment would be
expanding the hours from current law. He thought issues
were being conflated and family restaurant habits were not
especially relevant.
10:44:37 AM
Representative Carpenter called the question.
Co-Chair Merrick MAINTAINED her OBJECTION to conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 22.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Johnson, Josephson, LeBon, Ortiz, Wool
OPPOSED: Rasmussen, Thompson, Carpenter, Merrick
The MOTION PASSED (6/4). Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 22 was ADOPTED.
10:45:39 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 22.
Vice-Chair Ortiz reviewed his amendment. He proposed
changing the population cap from 9,000 to 7,500. He thought
this was a compromise that responded to competition and
opportunity in a new industry.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter asked to know where the changes in
the amendment were.
Vice-Chair Ortiz responded that the changes were on page 1
of Amendment 22, lines 19 and 23, and on page 2, line 4.
Co-Chair Merrick clarified the locations of the changes and
that 9,000 would be replaced by 7,500.
Representative Josephson commented that even though the
committee had testimony on the bill, the conversation
involved guesswork for him. He did not know how many new
opportunities were being created or what the implications
would be.
10:48:42 AM
AT EASE
10:49:08 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick indicated the committee would take a break
until 10:55 a.m.
10:49:18 AM
AT EASE
10:55:49 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick MAINTAINED the OBJECTION to conceptual
Amendment 2 to Amendment 22.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Edgmon
OPPOSED: Josephson, LeBon, Rasmussen, Thompson, Wool,
Carpenter, Johnson, Merrick
The MOTION to adopt conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 22
FAILED (2/8).
10:57:16 AM
Representative Wool provided wrap-up comments on Amendment
22 as amended. He thought it was a good compromise.
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
Representative Josephson asked for clarification that the
impact of the amendment as amended was that at 9:00 p.m.,
there would be a hard stop on the sale of alcohol and
establishments would be required to close at 9:30 p.m.
Representative Wool responded that Representative Josephson
was correct.
Representative Josephson continued to believe that 10:00
p.m. should not be considered the same in the winter as in
the summer.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
10:57:27 AM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson, LeBon, Ortiz, Wool, Edgmon, Johnson
OPPOSED: Rasmussen, Thompson, Carpenter, Merrick
The MOTION PASSED (6/4). Amendment 22 as amended was
ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the afternoon
meeting. The committee would be hearing a presentation from
the Alaska Court System and would continue hearing
amendments for SB 9.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 9 Public Testimony Rec'd by 041122_.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 9 |
| SB 9 Amendment Replacement 1 Merrick 041222.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 9 |
| SB 9 Amenement Carpenter . Rasmussen 26A 041222.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 9 |
| SB 9 Adopted Amendments HFIN 041222.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 9 |