Legislature(1993 - 1994)
05/05/1994 09:15 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 372
Act relating to community local options for control of
alcoholic beverages; relating to the control of
alcoholic beverages; relating to the definition of
`alcoholic beverage'; and providing for an effective
date.
Co-chair Pearce directed that SB 372 be brought back before
committee at this time. She noted that when the bill was
previously before members, it lacked sufficient votes to
pass. She then directed attention the "O" version of CSSB
372 (Finance) and explained that the new draft removes secs.
45, 58, and 59 of the previous "K" version. Sec. 58 would
have prohibited a municipality from levying a property tax
on alcoholic beverages. Some municipalities already have
such a tax. Sec. 45 would have banned ability of a
municipality to apply a sales tax to alcohol unless there
was a general sales tax. Sec. 59 contained the increased
tax on alcoholic beverages. Local option provisions remain
the same as does the definition of "alcoholic beverages."
The title was changed to remove the word "taxation."
Co-chair Frank MOVED for adoption of CSSB 372 (Finance), "O"
version. No objection having been raised, the "O" version
of CSSB 372 (Finance) was ADOPTED. In response to
statements by Co-chair Frank, Co-chair Pearce concurred that
the newly adopted draft now contains only the local option
changes requested by the department.
Senator Sharp directed attention to page 30, lines 10 and 11
and raised questions concerning opt-out provisions. Co-
chair Pearce directed that CSSB 372 (Finance) be held in
committee pending the arrival of the legal drafter to speak
to Senator Sharp's concerns.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 372(FIN)
An Act relating to community local options for control
of alcoholic beverages; relating to the control of
alcoholic beverages; relating to the definition of
`alcoholic beverage'; relating to purchase and sale of
alcoholic beverages; relating to alcohol server
education courses; and providing for an effective date.
Co-chair Pearce directed that attention revert to earlier
adopted CSSB 372 (Finance). Senator Sharp reiterated
concern regarding language at page 30, lines 8 through 11,
and asked if it would allow a community of 25 people or more
located 50 miles outside of the City of Fairbanks to hold a
local option election, even though the community may be
located within the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
End: SFC-94, #82, Side 1
Begin: SFC-94, #82, Side 2
MIKE FORD, Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, came
before committee. He referenced bill language and noted
that "established village" means an unincorporated
community. Discussion focused on the designation "unified
municipality." Co-chair Frank voiced his understanding that
Anchorage, Juneau, and Sitka are the only unified
municipalities within Alaska. Senator Rieger voiced concern
that, as presently drafted, the language could inadvertently
be construed to allow 25 houses clustered "just outside the
Fairbanks city limits but within the Fairbanks Borough" to
hold a local option election because the group is located
more than 50 miles outside the boundary limits of the
nearest unified municipality which is Anchorage. He
suggested that language speak to a unified municipality
"adjacent" to the organized borough in question. Mr. Ford
said that his reading of bill language would not apply the
interpretation suggested by Senator Rieger. The bill is
intended to focus on unincorporated communities in an
organized borough prior to meeting other bill criteria.
Senator Rieger raised questions concerning application of
the bill to communities within the MatSu Borough and the
Kenai Peninsula Borough. Senator Sharp expressed concern
that the bill does not say that the unified municipality has
to be within the organized borough. Co-chair Pearce asked
if members wished legal services to draft alternative
language. Senator Rieger observed that communities in close
proximity to a unified municipality are often difficult to
identify. Housing flows from one section to another.
Elsewhere in the state, however, communities are more easily
defined. He cautioned that, as drafted, the bill provides a
window for strained application. Co-chair Pearce suggested
that, in the interest of time, the bill pass from committee
with the understanding that Mr. Ford would work on
clarification language that could be offered on the floor of
the Senate. Senator Kerttula asked if the Co-chair's
proposal would be predicated upon Senator Sharp's
satisfaction with the new language. Co-chair Pearce
answered affirmatively. Mr. Ford also concurred.
Co-chair Frank MOVED for passage of CSSB 372 (Finance) with
the understanding that amending language would be prepared
for possible application in second reading on the floor of
the Senate. No objection having been raised, CSSB 372
(Finance) was REPORTED OUT of committee with the noted
caveat. Co-chairs Pearce and Frank and Senators Kelly and
Rieger signed the committee report with a "do pass"
recommendation. Senators Kerttula signed "do not pass."
Senator Sharp signed "do pass if amend." Senator Jacko was
absent from the meeting and did not sign. The bill was
accompanied by a $1.06 fiscal note from the Office of the
Governor/Elections and zero notes from the Dept. of Public
Safety and Dept. of Revenue/ABC Board.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|