Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/15/1995 03:06 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HL&C - 03/15/95 HB 180 - LIQUOR LICENSES FOR RESORT/LODGES CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that the next matter before committee is HB 180. Number 113 BARBARA KOTTING, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES, stated the sponsor, Representative James, had submitted this bill as a request to cover a loophole in existing liquor license laws. She explained that under current law, small lodges located in large boroughs or unified population areas cannot get liquor licenses because they do not have enough rooms. As an example, if a person wanted to develop a small lodge or tourist facility in a remote or inaccessible area of the Mat-su or Kenai Borough, the lodge would be required to have 40 rooms to obtain a full service liquor license. She stated that this was excessive and unfair, and that this is not a liquor issue, it is a business issue. She stated that Pat Sharrock was standing by to answer any questions. Number 145 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he supported the bill, but his concern was that this could be used as a way around a dry village or dry area. PAT SHARROCK, DIRECTOR, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) BOARD, responded that those dry villages probably reside in other incorporated boroughs of the state. In those areas, separate rules apply as to how or under what circumstances a liquor license could be issued, and is governed by a five mile radius rule. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted that the ABC Board would be looking at the proximity of the location for requests for these licenses in relation to the dry areas. MR. SHARROCK stated that the board looks closely at current licenses issued in communities on the grounds of encouraging tourism. If the board does not feel they're encouraging tourism, they suggest that the licensee comply with that or look to losing the license. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked what the rational was for excluding road system places outside of towns. MR. SHARROCK asked what he meant by "excluding road systems." REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked what the rationale was for Glennallen or Gakona not being able to do the same thing. MR. SHARROCK stated that those communities exist in the unincorporated areas of the state. In those areas, it's not the aggregate population that determines the issuance of a license. Number 206 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if any resort in Southeast could apply for this if they had only ten rooms. MR. SHARROCK responded that they could if they reside within a unified municipality or borough, and were not accessible as defined by the highway definition. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this included the ferry system. MR. SHARROCK said that in Title 28, it does say "including but not limited to every street, and the Alaska State Marine Highway System." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how many rental rooms you would have to have in the Municipality of Anchorage. MR. SHARROCK replied 50. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Sharrock to explain the process on issuing the liquor licenses. MR. SHARROCK explained that the applicant would advertise publicly in the newspaper and post the copy at the proposed premises. The applicant, after a period of time, would then file the application with the ABC Board, who must forward a copy of the application to the local governing body. During this time it is assumed that if there is public objection, those people will appear at the assembly meeting, or before the board, when it takes up final review of the application. He concluded that if the board felt this bill would promote the proliferation of liquor licenses, they would withdraw their support immediately. Number 275 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the first section, "encouraging tourist trade," and didn't feel this was a very high standard. He asked if there was any case law to back this up and how readily these licenses are granted. MR. SHARROCK stated that the board hasn't or doesn't grant any more than one or two per year. He stated that it's not that easy for an applicant to come forward and say, "I'm building a facility that has a dining room and I propose a bar." He explained that even with a minimum of ten rooms, it would be hard to find this economically viable if there is really no market for it. He pointed out the board, over the years, has not had, except in isolated cases, concern or objection about the way a facility has operated. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that in the first section, it states, "The board may approve issuance or transfer". He asked if this license, once it was issued and becomes personal property and has value, can be transferred to someone else subject to board approval. If this was the case, he asked if a prohibition of transfer would be a help to the board. MR. SHARROCK stated that the word "transfer" only applies as it extends to the premises for which the license was issued. He said that the license issued under this provision of the law is not relocatable. CHAIRMAN KOTT closed public testimony on HB 180. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that with assurances of Mr. Sharrock and the additional coverage that these new licenses would only be in the first class cities that have the ability to protest in and among themselves, he made a motion to move HB 180 from committee, with individual recommendations, and accompanying zero fiscal notes. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any objections. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON interjected that this has a very narrow application. He said that it was going to be difficult for the legislature next year to say "no" to a resort or lodge in a non-organized borough. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that the provisions under subsection (a), line 14, page 1, through line 6 of page 2, are qualifications that would apply in an unorganized borough. As mentioned, the organized boroughs and cities are having problem with the limitations on the numbers within those boundaries. He stated that they wouldn't be asked to pass legislation on outside areas because those would be dealt with by the ABC Board. CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that there was a motion to move the bill, he asked for objections. Hearing none, HB 180 was passed out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|