Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/19/2001 01:48 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 132
An Act relating to the possession or distribution of
alcohol in a local option area; requiring liquor
license applicants to submit fingerprints for the
purpose of conducting a criminal history background
check, and relating to the use of criminal justice
information by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board;
providing for a review of alcohol server education
courses by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board every
two years; and providing for an effective date.
HEATHER NOBREGA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG,
noted that the House Judiciary Committee has been requested
to introduce HB 132 to address some problems in the area of
bootlegging alcohol, and the issuance of liquor licenses to
persons with criminal records outside the State of Alaska.
Bootlegging is a prevalent problem in "dry" areas, and is a
large contributor to crime in those areas. By requiring
applicants for liquor licenses to give their fingerprints,
the State could thoroughly investigate the criminal
backgrounds so that only responsible individuals might
obtain a liquor license. She urged the Committee's support
of the legislation.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if the sponsor had a position on the
proposed amendment. Ms. Nobrega noted that Representative
Rokeberg supported the amendment, however, voiced concern
with the potential fiscal impact. He recommended that the
House Finance Committee work out the funding concerns.
Representative Croft asked where in the bill "six" would be
replaced with "12". Ms. Nobrego replied that change would
be made in Section 2 and 6.
Vice-Chair Bunde questioned if the legislation would make
bootlegging more lucrative. Ms. Nobrega replied that was
not the intent of the legislation. The intent is to make it
more difficult to get the alcohol.
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, spoke in support of the
legislation. He emphasized the problem that alcohol causes
in Alaska. There are provisions in current law that
establishes presumptions on the amounts of alcohol. He
added that the Criminal Justice Assessment Commission has
worked to look at a variety of aspects regarding crime in
Alaska and that alcohol is one of the primary concerns.
There is a problem with current law as it applies to the
attempt to send liquor into dry areas. The problem arises
when people attempt to mail or ship alcohol. When they do
that and are successful and over a certain amount, it then
becomes a Class C felony. If they do not succeed, it is
treated as an attempt, which in Alaskan law is handled as a
lesser crime. The level of culpability is the same.
TAPE HFC 01 - 88, Side B
Mr. Guaneli added that multiple shipments from multiple
stores have been used to circumvent the law. The only
effective way to deal with that, is to create a "delivery
site", an area that all alcohol shipped into a dry area has
to be delivered to a central location. Barrow bans the sale
of alcohol but allows its importation and operates one of
the delivery sites. Mr. Guaneli acknowledged that the price
is driven up by that practice, and emphasized that less is
getting into the community. The amendment would allow the
State to step-in and assume that function.
Representative Croft inquired the fiscal impact resulting
from the amendment.
Mr. Guaneli responded that the Department of Public Safety
received a substantial appropriation from the federal
government to combat bootlegging alcohol. As a result of
that appropriation, the Administration discussed effective
ways to deal with the concern. There is sufficient money
within that appropriation so that the program could be
operated at least for the first fiscal year without any
money coming from the general fund.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked the administrative costs to the
program in Barrow. Mr. Guaneli replied that the program is
operated under a contract and did not know the exact dollar
amount. The administrative fees cover the costs.
Representative Hudson questioned if the concern was
principally a rural issue. Mr. Guaneli affirmed it was and
noted that it actually applies only to the areas that have
banned sales but still allow importation, a couple primary
places, Bethel and Kotzebue. They are the hubs for the
smaller villages.
Representative Hudson questioned the intent. Mr. Guaneli
noted that the aim is not to reduce the social use of
alcohol. The intent is to address those people that are
selling alcohol for a profit through multiple package
stores. Profits are enormous and seriously drive that
industry.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if it were the goal to limit the
illegal distribution, and how would the success of the
program be evaluated. Mr. Guaneli responded that success
would not be measured by the reduction in alcohol. The
success would be measured in the reduction in the need for
social services and a reduction in crime. He affirmed that
there is not a baseline for the reduction of alcohol. He
added that the price of alcohol would be a measure.
Mr. Guaneli emphasized the difficulty creating a perfect
system. The intent is to limit persons to the amount that
they can statutorily receive in any month. There will
always be situations in which people try to circumvent the
law.
Co-Chair Mulder referenced the amendment and asked why the
Committee should consider adopting it as Bethel already has
it in place. Mr. Guaneli advised that it is already
allowed, but is not being done in certain locations
throughout the State. Given the amount of money that the
State spends in that area, there is a strong need to limit
the flow. It will not hurt to grant authority to the State.
He reiterated that this funding was available from another
source this year.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if it would be better to put a sunset
on the legislation. Mr. Guaneli replied that a study would
be a legitimate expenditure.
Co-Chair Mulder commented that measuring the success of such
a program would be nebulous. He reiterated applying a
sunset to justify that the program has been successful. Mr.
Guaneli agreed that following a period of time, if the State
does not show some success, then perhaps the effort should
be abandoned.
Representative Harris commented that there was an election
in Barrow that turned down the funding for the project. He
agreed that a sunset should be applied.
Vice-Chair Bunde endorsed the sunset. He noted that he was
preparing an amendment to the amendment proposing a 50%
local match. He hoped it would encourage a local buy-in.
DOUGLAS GRIFFIN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
ALCOHOLIC CONTROL BOARD (ABC), ANCHORAGE, stated that
language is needed by the Legislature to provide for a
statewide check. Mr. Griffin identified Section 3 of the
bill, which speaks to the criminal background check. There
needs to be specific information that allows the ABC Board
to access the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data
bank to provide a nationwide background data check.
Currently, ABC can only access criminal convictions within
the State of Alaska. He stressed that the addition of that
language would provide for a cost savings to the State. Mr.
Griffin pointed out that everything is run through the
Department of Public Safety. The State would benefit from a
more complete background check.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1 with the
conceptual addition of a 3-year sunset and a provision that
if any general fund was required, a 50% local match would be
required. [Copy on File]. Representative Harris OBJECTED
for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Harris asked if the federal money could be
encumbered during the process. Mr. Guaneli believed that
the $1.4 million federal dollars was available. A portion
of that money has been earmarked for a certain number of
troopers and prosecutors. He added that there is another
source of federal money re-occurring every year for drug and
alcohol concerns. Mr. Guaneli was confident that federal
funding would be available for at least the first year.
Until contracts and regulations are available, it will be
difficult to know what the amount is. He added that the
fees need to be assessed.
Representative Harris asked if the Administration was
confident that within the next three years, no general funds
would need to be used to maintain the program. Mr. Guaneli
reiterated that he could not guarantee that no federal funds
would be required for the entire length of the program.
Representative Harris asked if the sunset should be one
year. Mr. Guaneli replied that a one-year sunset would be
too short, as it will take time to write the contracts and
regulations. Three years would be an appropriate length of
time.
Representative Harris WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Williams advised that the drafter recommended that
a Letter of Intent should accommodate the bill.
Representative Hudson recommended making a separate adoption
of the Letter of Intent.
Representative Croft redefined Amendment #1, adding to it
the three year sunset date.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
Representative Hudson MOVED to ADOPT the Letter of Intent
stating that:
"It is the intent of the Legislature that any general
fund money that goes into the operation of this program
must have a 50% local match".
Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED for a question.
Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that Michael Ford, Legal
Drafter, had submitted the intent language.
Co-Chair Williams WITHDREW his OBJECTIN.
Representative Hudson MOVED to report CS HB 132 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations, the Letter of
Intent and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 132 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by Department of
Revenue dated 3/26/01, Department of Law dated 3/26/01,
Department of Corrections dated 3/26/01, Department of
Administration dated 3/26/01 and the Alaska Court System
dated 4/03/01.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|