Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
05/11/2019 11:00 AM House LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| SB16 | |
| SB83 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 16-ALCOHOL LIC:FAIRS,THEATRES,CONCERTS;BONDS
3:09:07 PM
CHAIR WOOL announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE CS FOR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 16(L&C), "An Act relating to
certain alcoholic beverage licenses and permits; relating to the
bond requirement for certain alcoholic beverage license holders;
and providing for an effective date."
3:09:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 31-
LS0283\O.1, Bruce, 5/9/19], which read:
Page 2, line 17, following "license":
Insert ";
(25) music festival permit"
Page 5, following line 19:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 10. AS 04.11 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 04.11.245. Music festival permit. (a) A
music festival permit authorizes the holder of a
restaurant or eating place license to sell or dispense
beer and wine for consumption at a festival with
multiple live music performances held off the holder's
licensed premises.
(b) The board may issue a music festival permit
only for
(1) a designated premises and for a limited
period, not to exceed four calendar days; and
(2) a music festival that has existed for a
period of at least 10 years before the application for
the permit is filed.
(c) The board may not issue more than one music
festival permit to the holder of a restaurant or
eating place license in a calendar year.
(d) A music festival permit may not be
transferred or renewed.
(e) An applicant for a music festival permit
under this section shall obtain the written approval
of a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over
the site of the event for which the music festival
permit is sought and provide the written approval to
the board with the application.
(f) The fee for a music festival permit is $50
for each day of the event and must accompany the
application for the permit."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 27, following "04.11.240(b),":
Insert "04.11.245(e)"
Page 7, line 18, following "(16)":
Insert "music festival permit;
(17)"
CHAIR WOOL objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:10:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO explained that Amendment 1 would
reinsert the music festival permit with the following
stipulations: The permit could not exceed four calendar days;
the festival must have existed for a period of at least 10 years
before the application is filed; the board may not issue more
than one music festival permit to the holder of a restaurant or
eating place license (REPL) in a calendar year; and the permit
may not be transferred or renewed.
CHAIR WOOL asked if Amendment 1 is intended for Chickenstock
Music festival.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered yes. He said the biggest
difficulty for Chickenstock is that a precedence was set seven
or eight years ago when they were given a permit to operate and
now that permit is no longer available to them due to a change
in personnel at the Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office (AMCO).
CHAIR WOOL asked how many years Chickenstock had been operating
with a beverage dispensary license (BDL).
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered, "three years."
CHAIR WOOL asked Ms. McConnell when Chickenstock Music Festival
started operating with a BDL instead of a REPL.
3:13:49 PM
ERIKA MCCONNELL, Director, Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office,
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development, said
that happened in 2016.
CHAIR WOOL noted that he was hesitant to make a change for one
specific business, especially since [Chickenstock] has been
functioning with a BDL for several years.
3:15:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES agreed. Nonetheless, she pointed out that
Chicken, Alaska is remote and there is only one BDL in the area.
She said there's a lot of liability involved with lending a
license to be used for a caterer's permit. She added that
Chicken is a small, remote community interested in having one
event. She said she's leaning towards voting in a positive
manner.
CHAIR WOOL said he understands that Chickenstock would like to
sell alcohol; however, he disagreed that distance or geography
is a barrier. He pointed out that it's standard for people to
cater festivals or concerts.
3:18:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said he would not support Amendment 1 if
it was unlimited or allowed restaurant owners in an urban area
to have a festival at their location when there are dozens of
BDL permit holders in the same area. However, given
Chickenstock's limited circumstance and the fact that this bill
is a package of one-off's, he said he would support Amendment 1.
He added that given the remote nature of this festival it is
highly unlikely to negatively impact BDL holders elsewhere.
3:19:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked if there were any REPLs aside from
Chickenstock's that were revoked in 2016.
3:20:25 PM
MS. MCCONNELL said not that she is aware of.
3:20:52 PM
SARAH OATES, President/CEO, Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant,
and Retailers Association, in response to Representative Hannan,
said there were permits issued in the past that did not meet the
necessary qualifications because they weren't providing banquet
or dinner events. Those permits are no longer issued because a
change in AMCO staff brought in someone who paid closer
attention to the statutes.
3:21:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked what the REPLs were being used for
before the statute was reinterpreted.
MS. OATES pointed out that under the proposed definition of
"music festival," any concert with more than one performer would
qualify for this permit. She said despite being intended for
Chickenstock, because of how it's written this bill would expand
upon it more than anticipated.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN referred to Amendment 1, lines 15-16, "a
music festival that has existed for a period of at least 10
years before the application for the permit is filed." She
offered her belief that the intention was to stop a new REPL
from being used to host a concert if they had not previously
done it for a period of 10 years.
MS. OATES said if that's the intention the language should be
clarified. She opined that it's relatively impossible to
determine if a festival has been in existence for 10 years or
more, adding that has seen a lot of things get pushed beyond the
intent.
3:24:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if it would be clearer to say, "a
music festival that has existed in a specific location for a
period of 10 years."
MS. OATES said limiting it to a particular licensee or to REPLs
that are located in an organized area with no organized
government would make it more palatable.
CHAIR WOOL questioned whether a band that plays somewhere every
year for a weekend could retroactively be considered a festival
to gain a REPL music festival permit.
MS. OATES confirmed that.
CHAIR WOOL offered his understanding that a permit is a one-off
deal. He asked if permits can be transferred.
3:26:32 PM
MS. MCCONNELL said a permit is issued for one particular event
and if another event occurs, the holder will need a new one.
MS. MCCONNELL said her understanding of this amendment is that
any REPL could apply for a music festival permit, but the music
festival itself must have been in existence for at least 10
years. A qualifying music festival, like Chickenstock, could
use a different REPL to get their permit each year. They do not
have to stick with the same licensee to serve at their festival
every year.
CHAIR WOOL questioned whether, according to this amendment, a
Chinese restaurant in Juneau could cater the REPL for
Chickenstock.
MS. MCONNELL said yes.
3:28:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked if the maker of Amendment 1 would
consider a friendly conceptual amendment to ensure that music
festivals aren't popping up in urban areas.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked if the language could be clarified
to say "license" rather than "permit" for consistency.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES turned attention to line 19, subsection
(d), and suggested changing the language to "A music festival
permit may not be renewed upon transfer for sale of the REPL."
CHAIR WOOL objected to "weigh into the legal language."
3:31:37 PM
MS. MCCONNELL said permits are not renewed at all - they are
discreet and get evaluated on a case by case basis. She
addressed the assumption that the REPL serving the festival is
somehow tied together in perpetuity, which is not the case. She
stated that attempting to create a tie between a particular REPL
and a particular festival would require different language on
line 19.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES suggested replacing "renewed" with
"issued."
CHAIR WOOL directed attention back to the "unorganized area"
language because of its limiting factors.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO withdrew Amendment 1.
3:34:28 PM
CHAIR WOOL moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 31-LS0283\O.4,
Bruce, 5/10/19], which read:
Page 4, lines 7 - 8:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) a public ski area
(A) where skiing and snowboarding occur;
(B) that sells lift tickets; and
(C) that has a permanent public structure."
Page 4, line 20:
Delete "fairs and other events"
Insert "an annual fair"
Page 4, line 26:
Delete "fair"
Insert "annual fair"
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:35:01 PM
ASHLEY STRAUCH, Staff, Representative Adam Wool, said that the
purpose of Amendment 2 is to clarify that a "public ski area" is
a place that has skiing and snowboarding, sells lift tickets,
and has a permanent public structure.
3:35:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS questioned whether a public structure is
one that is used by the public who patronize a facility or if a
public structure is one that is owned by the public.
MS. STRAUCH said it is used by the public, adding that the
intent is to prevent someone with a shed on private property
from selling a lift ticket and calling it a public ski area.
CHAIR WOOL added that the intent was to more solidly define what
a ski area is.
3:36:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES removed her objection.
3:36:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired as to the remaining changes
included in Amendment 2.
MS. STRAUCH explained that the intent of the changes on page 1,
lines 8-14, were to more clearly define the word "fair."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised that the distinction being drawn
is between the sequence of time, "the fair," and the physical
location.
CHAIR WOOL answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned whether the aforementioned
changes in Amendment 2 would maintain the original intent of the
bill.
3:39:15 PM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor
of SB 16, deferred the question to Jerome Hertel.
CHAIR WOOL, in response to Representative Hannan, said the
Alaska State Fair was previously using a recreational site
license, which is grandfathered into SB 16 to ensure they don't
lose any of the abilities they've had in the past.
3:39:58 PM
JEROME HERTEL, Manager, Alaska State Fair, opined that Amendment
2 would restrict the fair's ability to develop off-season events
and to generate revenue for such events. He noted that,
currently, they use a special events permit, which are limited
permits, for their off-season events. He said he is more in
favor of keeping the current language that allows them to
provide those services to the community.
CHAIR WOOL offered his understanding that the fair was using a
recreational site license until December 2018, which allowed
them to do events there.
MR. HERTEL deferred to Erika McConnell.
3:42:26 PM
MS. MCCONNELL offered her understanding that in general, the
fair was using a recreational site license to operate a variety
of events throughout the year; however, there was an issue
involving events on portions of their licensed premises that
accommodated unaccompanied minors. She worked with the fair to
develop and alternating premises system, which is allowed under
regulation. She opined that there was no need for the fair to
use permits while using their license for various events year-
round.
CHAIR WOOL speculated that if they use their grandfathered rec
site license they could continue with their events. He asked if
that were true.
MS. MCCONNELL answered yes.
CHAIR WOOL asked Mr. Hertel if he's considered buying BDL for
the events he puts on every year.
MR. HERTEL asked if the fair would qualify for a BDL. He noted
that regarding their annual events, not all 75 utilize alcohol.
He said that approximately 15-20 events serve alcohol.
3:45:14 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he drafted this bill to support an event
that all Alaskans enjoy. He acknowledged that it is an
expensive event and pointed out that the fair utilizes the
earnings from alcohol to provide programs for children and
agriculture. He emphasized that it's an important event for
Alaskans and taking a step that could potentially negatively
impact the fair is dangerous. He stated that he supports the
first part of Amendment 1 and expressed concern about the second
part.
CHAIR WOOL offered his understanding that the grandfathering
section alone would keep the fair running as is. He noted that
the intent was to help future fairs that want to sell alcohol
increase their revenue and sustainability. He reemphasized that
the grandfathering section would preserve the Alaska State
Fair's successful business model, while the fair license on page
2, line 17, would enable future fairs to join that elite club of
fairs that keep their own alcohol revenue. He stated that he
likes the language offered in the amendment.
3:47:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REVAK suggested postponing this discussion to a
later date.
3:48:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES reminded members that the fair won't be
impeded by having their events and could continue to operate the
same way that they always have. She asked Ms. McConnell if that
were true.
MS. MCCONNELL affirmed that.
3:48:38 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said if that's the case and this doesn't
[negatively] impact the fair then he supports it. He expressed
his support for Amendment 3 as well.
3:49:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES removed her objection to Amendment 2.
There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
3:49:15 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL moved Amendment 3, [labeled 31-LS0283\O.3, Bruce,
5/11/19], which read:
Page 2, lines 23 - 27:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) may only provide entertainment on the
licensed premises between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. as permitted in
(h) of this section, unless approved by the director
after written request by the licensee for a specific
occasion [; IN THIS PARAGRAPH, "ENTERTAINMENT"
INCLUDES DANCING, KARAOKE, LIVE PERFORMANCES, OR
SIMILAR ACTIVITIES, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE RECORDED OR
BROADCAST PERFORMANCES WITHOUT LIVE PARTICIPATION]."
Page 2, following line 27:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 04.11.100 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(h) An applicant for initial licensure or
renewal of a restaurant or eating place license shall
select, at the time of application, whether to permit
entertainment on the licensed premises between the
hours of 11:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. or between the hours
of 3:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. A licensee may not change
the permitted hours of entertainment until the
licensee submits an application for renewal of the
license.
(i) In this section, "entertainment" includes
dancing, karaoke, live performances, or similar
activities, but does not include recorded or broadcast
performances without live participation."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 8, line 25:
Delete "sec. 6"
Insert "sec. 7"
Page 9, line 2:
Delete "Section 6"
Insert "Section 7"
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:49:25 PM
MS. STRAUCH explained that Amendment 3 would allow a business to
choose between the 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. timeframe and the
3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. timeframe to provide entertainment on
the licensed premises. After the two-year duration of that
business's license they could change their designation; however,
for the duration of that two-year license period, whichever
timeframe they choose they must abide by.
3:50:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed her full support for Amendment
3.
CHAIR WOOL noted that this amendment allows businesses to have
the option of providing entertainment during lunch hour.
3:51:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES removed her objection to Amendment 3.
There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
3:52:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to report HCS CSSB 16, Version
LS0283\O, Bruce, 5/4/19, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Without
objection, HCS CSSB 16(L&C) was moved from the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 16.Bill Version O.pdf |
HL&C 5/11/2019 11:00:00 AM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Amendments 1-2.pdf |
HL&C 5/11/2019 11:00:00 AM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Amendment 3.pdf |
HL&C 5/11/2019 11:00:00 AM |
SB 16 |
| SB 83.Bill Version M.pdf |
HL&C 5/11/2019 11:00:00 AM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Amendments 1-7.pdf |
HL&C 5/11/2019 11:00:00 AM |
SB 83 |