Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/10/2015 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 | |
| HB123 | |
| HB176 | |
| HB15 | |
| HB137 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act establishing the Marijuana Control Board;
relating to the powers and duties of the Marijuana
Control Board; relating to the appointment, removal,
and duties of the director of the Marijuana Control
Board; relating to the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board; and providing for an effective date."
1:35:07 PM
CHRIS HLADICK, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, relayed that the bill
was the funding vehicle for the marijuana initiative and
would also create a board to regulate marijuana (an option
left to the legislature in the initiative language). He
discussed that the administration had spent considerable
time reviewing a variety of options for the regulatory
framework. Following its work the administration
recommended a new five-member volunteer board with a shared
staff with alcohol. He explained that while some additional
staff was needed for the increased workload associated with
the implementation of the initiative and a new license
pool, the cost of the board remained reasonable at $50,000
annually for board travel and per diem. He relayed that the
cost was comparable to what would be required for the
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board to hold additional
meetings to address marijuana regulations and licensing; it
would provide a board solely dedicated to the responsible
and safe regulation of the new industry.
1:37:22 PM
CYNTHIA FRANKLIN, DIRECTOR, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, provided a sectional analysis of the bill:
Section 1: Amends Title 4 naming the director of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board as the director of
the Marijuana Control Board. Establishes the process
for appointment and removal of the director.
Ms. Franklin elaborated that a majority vote would be
required for both boards. She continued with the sectional
analysis:
Section 2: Establishes the 5 member Marijuana Control
Board in Title 17 with designated seats for public
health, rural, public safety, and industry.
Ms. Franklin added that the section reflected the way the
division wished alcohol was regulated; not the way the ABC
Board was currently structured. The structure for the ABC
Board was currently contained in SB 99, Title 4 revisions.
She stated that there was no requirement for a public
health or public safety representative on the current
makeup of the ABC Board. The division felt the seats were
essential in the new marijuana industry. She addressed
Section 3:
Section 3: Establishes terms of office for board
members and chair, sets out requirements for board
meetings and provides for board member per diem.
Outlines the powers and duties of the board to propose
and adopt regulations, establish qualifications for
licensure, review applications for licensure, hear
appeals from the actions of the director, reduce the
area of a licensed premise, and to adopt regulations
according to AS 44.63. Establishes the board's
enforcement powers as mirroring those of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board outlined in AS 04.06.110.
Provides for appointment and removal of the director
and establishes the duties of the director.
Ms. Franklin elaborated that Section 3 included the first
change from the House Labor and Commerce committee
substitute; it put into statute the intent that the
marijuana board would meet immediately following the ABC
Board in order to reduce spending on staff travel. She
moved to Sections 4 through 11:
Section 4: Defines board in AS 17.38.900(1) to mean
the Marijuana Control Board created by this act.
Section 5: Defines "director" as the director of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and Marijuana control
board. Defines "registration" to mean registration or
licensure as determined by regulation.
Section 6: Amends the duties of the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development to
include providing clerical and administrative support
for the Marijuana Control Board.
Section 7: Places the Marijuana Control Board on the
list of entities whose procedural hearings are held by
the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Section 8: Provides for a sunset date.
Section 9: Amends uncodified law for initial
appointment of board members.
Section 10: Provides for transition regulations such
that if the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board adopts
any regulations before the Marijuana Control Board is
created, those regulations can be implemented,
enforced, amended or repealed by the Marijuana Control
Board and provides that regulations adopted by the
board in any transition period take effect after the
effective date of the act.
Section 11: Provides for an immediate effective date.
1:40:34 PM
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that the bill would come before
the committee again at a later date for additional
discussion and public testimony.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked why Sections 1 and 2 both included
provisions for the appointment and removal of the director.
Ms. Franklin replied that Section 1 amended existing Title
4 law so that the statutes regarding alcohol also indicate
that the director of the ABC Board was simultaneously the
director of the Marijuana Control Board. Section 2
addressed the same issue in Title 17.
Representative Gara thanked Ms. Franklin for her work on
the bill. He observed that enforcement would be needed when
commercial operations began. He believed that extra
enforcement staff (beyond current police officers,
troopers, and law enforcement) were not necessary until
revenue was generated from marijuana. Additionally,
regulations would need to be developed; however, he
disagreed with the process where the Department of Law
charged the ABC Board for work done by its attorneys. He
did not believe the services represented a real cost. He
questioned whether the cost should be included in the
fiscal note.
Co-Chair Thompson believed Commissioner Hladick had a
comment about the possibility of not needing to hire two
sets of enforcement officers. Commissioner Hladick replied
that any new enforcement officers would be cross-trained in
order to work together when traveling throughout the state.
The administration believed that before commercial
operations began there would be commercial operations
starting, which would keep officers busy.
Co-Chair Thompson surmised that officers would be cross-
trained in order for one person to have the ability to
handle both alcohol and marijuana issues.
Representative Guttenberg pointed to the 2018 expiration
date for the board. He wanted to ensure that the date
allowed sufficient time for the Division of Legislative
Budget and Audit to do an accurate job to provide the
legislature with a report. Ms. Franklin replied that the
division would follow up with the timeline. She added that
the sunset matched the date of the ABC Board extension.
Representative Guttenberg understood. However, he thought
the initial audit of the Marijuana Control Board may need
to be a bit different.
Representative Pruitt addressed board membership. He
thought the public health, rural, public safety, and
industry seats were fairly clear; however, the fifth seat
was either filled by a member of the general public or from
the marijuana industry. He cited Sections 2(e) and 2(f) of
the bill:
(e) Not more than two members of the board may be
engaged in the same business, occupation, or
profession.
(f) A board member representing the general public,
the public safety sector, the public health sector, or
a rural area, or the member's immediate family member
may not have a financial interest in the marijuana
industry.
Representative Pruitt continued that due to the language
related to the fifth board seat, there could potentially be
two individuals with a financial interest in the marijuana
industry on the board. He asked if that was the intent. He
wondered about the reason for the potential duplication.
Ms. Franklin answered that the "or" was included because
the background of the director was taken into
consideration. For example, if the director had a marijuana
industry background, the industry would lose a seat on the
board. Likewise, if the director had a public safety
background, the public safety seat on the board would be
replaced by a member of the general public. The language
was a recognition that with a five-member volunteer board
that would only meet a few times per year, the director's
background had a significant impact on the agency; it was
an attempt to avoid background duplication between the
director and a board member. The replacement by a member of
the general public would only occur if the director had one
of the designated backgrounds.
1:47:40 PM
Co-Chair Thompson noted that the committee would hear the
bill the following week.
Representative Guttenberg referred to the board membership,
specifically related to a member from the marijuana
industry. He reasoned that there were different components
of the industry. He wondered if the concept had been taken
into account.
Ms. Franklin replied that there had been significant
discussion related to the industry seat, particularly in
the first two years when regulations would be developed.
The department recognized there would be different aspects
of the industry just as there were in the alcohol industry.
The makeup of the board did not include a prohibition on
any certain section of the marijuana industry. She noted
that there was a section in Title 4 that prevented a
wholesaler from having a seat on the ABC Board. The
division had not identified any aspect of the industry that
would eliminate a person from consideration as a board
member. She added that it was anticipated that there would
not be a way to represent all aspects of the industry on
the board.
HB 123 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Workdraft CSHB15 4-8-2015.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 137 CS WORKDRAFT FIN G Version.PDF |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 176 CS WORKDRAFT E version.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 176 Legal Opinion.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 176 Letters.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 176 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 137 Support letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 15 Amendment #1.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 137 Additional Info Sommerville.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 137 |