Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/12/2022 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 | |
| Presentation: Port of Alaska | |
| SB9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 9 | 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."
2:52:56 PM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 10, 32-
LS0124\W.13 (Dunmire, 3/30/22) (copy on file):
Page 51, lines 24-25:
Delete "four live music or entertainment permits
to a licensee in a calendar year"
Insert "one live music or entertainment permit to
a licensee in a calendar quarter"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool explained that the amendment would
allow one live events per quarter to occur in a brewery,
tasting room, or distillery. The amendment would limit
events to one event per quarter rather than unlimited
events. The motivation was to put additional sidebars on
individuals in the entertainment business and manufacturers
of alcohol in order to avoid impacting the business of the
bar industry.
Representative Rasmussen thought the amendment was over-
restrictive. She would be opposing the amendment.
Representative LeBon agreed with Representative Rasmussen.
He thought it would be too restrictive and that businesses
should have the ability to schedule events as they please.
He could not imagine a concert outside in January in
Fairbanks.
Representative Wool was not trying to impose excessive
restrictions. He suggested there were seasonal rules that
applied to other businesses like fishing. He did not think
the idea was met with objection by individuals in the
alcohol manufacturing industry. He agreed that an outdoor
concert in Fairbanks in January would not make sense, but
the concert could be indoors.
Senator Micciche did not have a problem with the amendment.
He thought it was fair.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative LeBon OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Lebon, Ortiz, Rasmussen, Thompson, Carpenter,
Josephson
OPPOSED: Wool, Johnson, Merrick
Representative Edgmon was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 10 FAILED (3/6).
2:59:40 PM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 19, 32-
LS0124\W.22 (Dunmire, 3/30/22) (copy on file):
Page 49, line 14:
Delete "10"
Insert "four"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool explained that the amendment addressed
the number of events a nonprofit could hold to sell its own
alcohol. Current law allowed for five events per year, and
he realized that he meant to propose "five" instead of
"four."
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 19.
Co-Chair Merrick clarified that conceptual Amendment 1
would change line 3 of Amendment 19 from "four" to "five."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool spoke to the original amendment. He
reiterated that the current law allowed for five events but
was raised in the Senate Finance Committee in 2020 to ten
events. He wanted to reduce the number back to five. If a
nonprofit wanted to have more than five events, it would
have to get a catering permit. He explained that a catering
permit would allow there to be alcohol sold at an event
through a third party that had an alcohol license. He
reiterated that the bill proposed raising the number of
events to ten per year and the amendment would reduce it
back to five, which was what was in current law.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 19 was ADOPTED.
Representative Wool reviewed Amendment 19 as amended. He
thought five events per year was acceptable but ten would
be excessive.
3:06:01 PM
Representative LeBon asked Representative Wool if a
nonprofit would be responsible for liability if it
overserved alcohol to an individual at an event at a venue
like the Juneau City Museum, or would the museum be
responsible.
Representative Wool was confident that the person serving
the alcohol would be responsible. He assumed the servers at
nonprofit events would have met the requirements to serve
alcohol.
3:08:05 PM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, SPONSOR, indicated the venue would
not take on the liability. The nonprofit would be
responsible.
Representative LeBon asked if the nonprofit would be
required to have an insurance policy for the event.
Senator Micciche thought that liability issues that
typically arose concerning large organizations did not
usually involve alcohol. It was usually an issue of someone
falling and hurting themselves or something similar. He was
unaware of any problems in the past related to liability.
He thought liability was covered at every event, whether
alcohol was present or not.
Representative Wool responded that when he had to buy a
liquor license, he had to buy liability insurance for
"slipping and falling." He had to buy liquor liability
insurance separately, which was not simple to obtain.
3:10:48 PM
Representative Rasmussen asked if the maker of the
amendment was aware of any nonprofits that were exceeding
the ten events per year limit.
Representative Wool was unaware of anyone holding more than
five fundraising events. If they were, they were breaking
the current law.
Representative Rasmussen asked why the limit of ten events
per year was chosen.
Senator Micciche offered the example that First Friday
events would involve more than five events per year. He
clarified that no one in Alaska was required to have
liability insurance under state law for alcohol. However,
one-time alcohol liability insurance was easy to purchase,
and organizations would typically purchase this insurance
for an event.
Representative LeBon thought the nonprofit community would
want to default to a professional when alcohol was
involved. He though the amendment was reasonable.
Representative Wool provided wrap-up comments on the
amendment. He thought it was sufficient to permit five
events per year. He understood that First Friday events
also needed special event permits.
3:15:08 PM
AT EASE
3:16:56 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 19 as amended
was ADOPTED.
3:17:15 PM
Representative Wool withdrew Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 24.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated the next amendment would be
Amendment 26A.
3:18:33 PM
AT EASE
3:20:22 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 26A, 32-
LS0124\W.37 (Dunmire, 4/7/22) (copy on file):
Page 73, line 23:
Delete "or of"
Page 73, line 24, following "AS 04.11.150,":
Insert "an existing brewery retail license under
AS 04.09.320, an existing winery retail license
under AS 04.09.330, or an existing distillery
retail license under AS 04.09.340"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter reviewed the amendment. The
amendment would modify the language in the bill on page 73.
The amendment would add winery, distillery, and brewery
license types into the language of the bill.
Representative Josephson provided a hypothetical scenario.
He asked if a business in an outer borough did not have a
liquor license if the license could be relocated back to
the city of origin, thereby freeing up that license for
purchase.
Senator Micciche responded that the amendment was brought
forward because someone had brought the issue to his
attention. He agreed that if a city wanted another license
to be available, but it did not quite reach the population
requirement, it could borrow population from an outer
borough to reach the required number. It would solve the
problem for cities that may eventually cap out but had a
large population in a borough that was not in the city.
3:24:44 PM
Representative Josephson asked if Senator Micciche approved
of the amendment.
Senator Micciche responded affirmatively. There may be some
potential expansion of the license allowance in another
bill. Police groups could be moved between borough and city
depending on the need.
Representative Josephson asked whether recovery groups
would think that this was a loophole around licenses for
population limits.
Senator Micciche understood the concern. However, it did
not add new licenses, it relocated licenses. The population
was already present. He noted that recovery groups were
worried about a different amendment that would have added
new licenses.
3:27:08 PM
Representative Johnson provided a scenario where a license
was transferred into a city from a borough. She asked
whether the license would remain in the city or revert back
to the borough once it was sold. She wondered if the
licenses would become indistinguishable from each other.
Senator Micciche thought members were too focused on the
population amounts. He responded that the license could
either stay in the city or move back out to the borough.
However, there would likely be room in the borough already
for another license. He spoke with a tasting room owner
earlier that day who planned to purchase a Restaurant or
Eating Place License (REPL) should the bill pass, which
would free up their current license.
Representative Johnson clarified that it would become a
whole license within the city.
Senator Micciche responded in the affirmative.
Representative Carpenter did not read anything in statute
that would prescribe that the change would be permanent.
However, he thought that in the future the leaders of
organizations might treat it as a quota.
3:30:10 PM
Representative LeBon commented that in Fairbanks, the
Fairbanks North Star Borough had about twice the population
of the city. He suggested that any business would want to
take advantage of the highest traffic flow, and there was a
steady traffic flow from the borough into the city. The
amendment would give an option for a license to be located
near or within a city if the economics and the business
opportunity made sense. He indicated that this was the
purpose of the amendment.
Senator Micciche corrected himself regarding his response
to Representative Johnson's earlier question. He indicated
that the license would actually become a license of the
city if a business moved to the city, and it would remain a
city license instead of belonging to the borough. If a
business owner wanted to move their business outside of the
city, they would apply under the borough's remaining
population cap.
Representative Johnson thought the distinction was
important. Her comments were in the service of future
business owners.
Senator Micciche also corrected the record that a Brewery
or Distillery License (BDL) could already move into a city
from a borough.
Representative Wool was going to make the same point as the
bill sponsor. He thought that a tasting room already had to
be in existence in a borough before it could be transferred
to the city. He wondered if the process would be the same
for package stores.
Senator Micciche responded that his understanding was the
opposite, and that one could apply in the borough for a
city license. A business owner had to be licensed but did
not have to be operating before applying to move a business
into the city. He added that language related to package
store relocation had been in the bill since 2016.
Representative Wool did not believe the language was in
current statute but it was in the bill. He thought that if
there was a package store in a borough, it could be
transferred into a city. Every ten years, a maximum of
three stores could be moved and would have to be approved
by the Alcohol and Beverage Control Board.
Senator Micciche responded in the affirmative. He indicated
that he wanted to appease communities that wanted more
flexibility and the ability to license their own alcohol.
Representative Wool noted that brewery could obtain a REPL
under the bill and have a new set of rules to work under.
He thought that the existing tasting room license the
brewery once operated under would then be available for
sale.
Senator Micciche responded in the affirmative. The license
would either return to the state or the business could
choose to sell it.
3:35:16 PM
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 26A was
ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Merrick would have a vote and comments at a future
meeting. She reviewed the agenda for the following morning
meeting. She also set amendment deadlines for HB 220 and
HB 229 which were due by noon on Wednesday, April 29, 2022.
CSSB 9(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Port of Anchorage HFIN PAMP Presentation 4-11-2022 .pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2022 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Port of Anchorage Support Letters.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2022 1:30:00 PM |