Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
02/05/2015 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Municipal Regulation of Marijuana | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 5, 2015
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cathy Tilton, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Shelley Hughes
Representative Benjamin Nageak
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Dan Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lora Reinbold
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF MARIJUANA
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
LUKE HOPKINS, Mayor
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as to the importance of local
level regulation of marijuana.
WENDY DOXEY, Assistant Borough Attorney
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the municipal regulation of
marijuana.
BRYCE WARD, Mayor
City of North Pole
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the municipal regulation of
marijuana.
LANCE ROBERTS
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the municipal regulation of
marijuana.
KELLY WOLF, Member
Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the municipal regulation of
marijuana.
PAUL OSTRANDER, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on the municipal
regulation of marijuana, answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:17 AM
CHAIR CATHY TILTON called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:03 a.m.
Representatives Ortiz, Drummond, Seaton, Hughes, and Tilton were
present at the call to order. Representative Nageak arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): Municipal Regulation of Marijuana
PRESENTATION(S): Municipal Regulation of Marijuana
8:04:21 AM
CHAIR TILTON announced that the only order of business would be
presentations regarding the municipal regulation of marijuana.
8:05:37 AM
LUKE HOPKINS, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough, informed the
committee that in the Fairbanks North Star Borough there are 5.5
House districts and 56 percent of registered voters voted on
Ballot Measure 2 of which there were 18,000 more in favor than
in opposition. He further informed the committee that 7
precincts voted against the legalization of marijuana and 26
precincts voted in support of the legalization of marijuana.
Therefore, he characterized it as a strong message that most in
Fairbanks want marijuana to be legalized. [Following the
initiative results], the City of Fairbanks, the City of North
Pole, and the Fairbanks North Star Borough as well as attorneys
and mayors held a town hall meeting on December 3, 2014,
regarding the pros and cons of the legalization of marijuana.
The meeting had very good turnout. The following week the
mayors met to ensure that there was legislation that worked
together, to the maximum extent possible [between the cities and
the borough]. Further discussion was held with the police
chiefs, state troopers, and other members of the community. On
January 28, 2014, a Mayors' Marijuana Working Group of about 30
people met. The meeting was open to the public and there was
discussion of concerns, particularly from school districts,
military bases, law enforcement officers, and representatives
from the Coalition for Cannabis Legislation, and an assembly
member. Another meeting will be held February 13, 2015, to
continue the discussion. Mayor Hopkins stressed that to his
community the most important language is in relation to local
zoning, permitting, and boards legislation. He informed the
committee that the borough's community planning director was
sent to the Colorado conference last month. The borough is
delving into zoning regulations to establish where marijuana can
be sold and grown. There are also issues surrounding
manufacturing, testing, and retail. The Fairbanks North Star
Borough is a second class borough with zoning powers. Since the
borough has a planning commission and an assembly to hear
possible appeals on conditional use permits, he opined that the
borough has a good setup that works well and allows the public
to have a lot of input into the borough's decisions. He
expressed his support, to the extent possible, for the
municipality to maintain the aforementioned structure because
basically [these decisions] are best made at the local level.
MAYOR HOPKINS expressed concern with regard to [the definition]
of "personal use". Currently, there is an ordinance [before]
the public. He then indicated there would be another component
that defined "public use." The borough, he related, will bring
more ordinances before the assembly by March 12, 2015, to
address/define possession, processing, and other components. He
expressed the desire to develop a public input process as well
as permitting at the local level. He indicated the desire for
the state, to the extent possible, to specify that the
permitting process [is under the purview] of the [local
borough]. He explained the need to have the parameters of
marijuana regulations in terms of zoning well understood prior
to people investing in buildings, leases, property, and
equipment. The aforementioned is particularly important in
terms of the already existing sensitive receptors, such as
schools, daycare centers, rehab institutions, etcetera. He
noted that the committee should have a letter from Wendy Doxey,
Assistant Borough Attorney, which is very detailed in relating
the borough administration's direction.
8:15:23 AM
WENDY DOXEY, Assistant Borough Attorney, Fairbanks North Star
Borough, highlighted some of the points of her January 30, 2015,
letter. Most importantly, the Fairbanks North Star Borough
wants local control to the maximum ability possible, with broad
regulatory strokes from the state. The borough, she related,
also wants municipalities to be allowed to be more restrictive
if they so choose. With respect to the initiative and the Act,
Ms. Doxey opined that some portions of the Act are unartfully
drafted, such as the use of the term "public." Using the term
"public" in various ways throughout the initiative makes it
difficult to develop a definition of "public" that applies to
every way in which it's used in the personal use provisions.
Therefore, she suggested, as the letter recommends, redrafting
the Act such that the term "public" is only used for the
prohibition of personal use in public provision. The state, she
suggested, could provide a definition of "public" in terms of
the ban on public consumption. She noted that in the letter she
addresses other concerns with the personal use provisions of the
Act. For instance, the language in several provisions of the
Act give rise to concern that there will be a personal use
market in which trading of one ounce of marijuana for something
other than money could occur. The aforementioned might be
curbed if possession of marijuana, including the possession of
six plants, could be defined restrictively. Further, if the
term "remuneration" was changed to "benefit" that might restrict
the personal use trade market that is of concern. She recalled
testimony from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough attorney was
concerned with the term "assist" in the personal use provisions.
There was [the suggestion] to define the term "assist" in a way
that doesn't allow proxy grows. She then expressed concerns
with regard to the dangerous extraction methods and the desire
to avoid the problems that Colorado has experienced. Ms. Doxey
said that the aforementioned could be addressed by defining the
term "processing" for personal use such that flammable and
combustible extraction methods can be excluded. She then
related concerns with regard to stock piling marijuana as there
is no restriction as to how much [harvested] marijuana can be
kept in the home. She then turned to AS 17.38.110 that refers
to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which in a situation
in which the state misses the deadline and the borough wants to
step in requires the borough to meet the standards of the APA.
However, Ms. Doxey opined it would be impossible for the borough
to meet the APA provisions, and thus she expressed the need for
the state to change that language early on. Ms. Doxey echoed
earlier testimony regarding the desire for the state to address
the broader issues and allow local regulation. She identified
the following broad issues as appropriate for the state to
address: security, testing, keeping the state's marijuana in
the state, keeping marijuana out of the hands of children,
driving under the influence (DUI), and public education.
8:21:58 AM
MAYOR HOPKINS related that he has received very strong
statements expressing concern from [constituents] regarding
edibles and the ability to determine the potency and
authenticity of the product. He suggested marking the product
in some manner to identify [the potency and authenticity of the
product].
CHAIR TILTON agreed that edibles are of concern for many.
8:23:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the language [prohibiting
the] public use/view of marijuana doesn't reference commercial
agriculture or growing. He asked whether the aforementioned was
intentional or an oversight. He noted that the initiative
itself doesn't seem to require [commercial] cultivation to be
performed out of public view.
MAYOR HOPKINS remarked that restrictions [for commercial growing
and cultivation] could be discussed at the local level in terms
of zoning.
MS. DOXEY surmised that perhaps [the initiative] contemplated
that commercial operations would be addressed in regulation.
She related her understanding that high quality marijuana grows
would be in warehouses, which she expected would be the case
with commercial grows, and thus there would likely be minimal
risk of being in public view. However, commercial operations
could be addressed through zoning, conditional use permitting,
signage requirements, or setback requirements.
8:28:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES related that some of her constituents have
expressed the desire for agricultural land currently used for
food production not to be used for marijuana production. If
such is the case, then new land would be needed for marijuana
production. She then inquired as to whether there have been
conversations about the aforementioned.
MAYOR HOPKINS confirmed that there are have been conversations
about agricultural land and commercial operations. He opined
that local governments have the authority, through zoning
regulations, to establish what the community wants in terms of
how much agricultural land could be planted with marijuana. He
related his understanding that zoning requirements through
permitting, conditional use permitting, could be used in order
to maintain "food security."
8:30:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to whether Fairbanks has had
discussions regarding whether the [regulation of marijuana]
should be an areawide power versus [under the purview] of the
smallest dimension of the municipality.
MAYOR HOPKINS confirmed that the Fairbanks North Star Borough
has had discussions on that matter. He acknowledged that cities
may have a more restrictive implementation of enforcement and
other requirements regarding public and personal use. He
reminded the committee that zoning requirements overlay the two
cities. Per state code, the City of Fairbanks and the City of
North Pole have representatives on the [Fairbanks North Star
Borough's] planning commission. Mayor Hopkins opined there
should be a board that can address the conflicts that might
arise between the boundary of the city and the borough rules
that overlay the cities. He noted that the cities are bringing
forward personal use ordinances, while the borough ordinances
are coming February 26th. The goal, he remarked, is to ensure
that [there isn't a tremendous amount of contradictory
overlaying of regulations].
MS. DOXEY added that the Act clearly designates power to the
municipalities through AS 17.38.110. The Fairbanks North Star
Borough, she informed the committee, has been treating that
statute as if it's an areawide delegation of power. She opined
that it may behoove the state to clarify that language. She
offered that it would proper to add that power to Title 29 as
that's where municipalities receive their power from the state.
8:34:21 AM
CHAIR TILTON inquired as to the thoughts of the Fairbanks North
Star Borough on the creation of a marijuana control board versus
utilizing the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board for the
control of marijuana.
MAYOR HOPKINS confirmed that the borough contemplated the
aforementioned and determined that a local control board would
be established as there are issues to be addressed at the local
level.
MS. DOXEY related that the borough administration isn't
particularly concerned with whether the state establishes
something through the ABC Board or a separate marijuana control
board so long as it's effective and adequately staffed. At the
local level, the borough wants to have as much control over a
local regulatory agency that each municipality may establish.
She opined that each municipality will be different, and thus
the makeup of each regulatory body would be different.
Therefore, the municipality doesn't want the state to dictate to
it what it has to do and have it not work in the municipality.
8:37:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK asked if a local government can opt-out of
making its own rules and regulations or can they take the
state's lead.
MAYOR HOPKINS answered that there are some cities that are
considering opting-out of certain aspects of Ballot Measure 2,
as allowed. The local board would be the entity that would
adjudicate situations with borders and the differing rules and
regulations. Mayor Hopkins stressed that they are trying to
make it work at the community level.
8:39:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough testimony expressed similar concern, but wanted areawide
power so that if the borough decided to opt-out, then every
community within the borough would be opted-out as well.
Therefore, communities within a borough wouldn't be able to
exercise a local specific power to allow things. Although he
understood the notion of an areawide power under which entities
work together, the legislature will have to decide what a "local
power" means. He opined that a local board wouldn't have the
statutory authority to determine the powers. He then encouraged
the municipalities to consider the aforementioned and how the
powers are to be delegated from the legislature as it's
currently unclear in current statute and the initiative as to
whether it will be the individual cities within the borough or
the borough areawide power.
8:41:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK expressed concern there would be a mixture
of rules and regulations within a municipality.
8:42:41 AM
BRYCE WARD, Mayor, City of North Pole, explained that North Pole
is a city within a borough. He informed the committee that
currently there are two readings of the following ordinances
before the city: public consumption and hash oil extraction
ordinances. He related his understanding that the ballot
initiative deals with public consumption and commercialization
of the marijuana industry. He directed attention to the City of
North Pole's Resolution 15-08, included in the committee packet,
which addresses some of the issues with the commercialization of
marijuana. The City of North Pole, as expressed in the
resolution, is concerned with clarifying the term "public
place." The City of North Pole, he related, has taken a very
conservative approach to the definition of "public place." The
state needs to address import and export rules regarding the
import of seeds for the start of manufacturing and the export of
product. There is also concern with regard to edibles and the
packaging that could be addressed at the state level. He
pointed out that at this point, there is nothing that identifies
or differentiates between cannabis for recreational use versus
medicinal use. Mayor Ward highlighted that the City of North
Pole is also concerned with the potency standards, which he
opined could be regulated at the state level. As mentioned
earlier, there are agricultural tax issues as well as visibility
issues. He expressed the desire for the state to consider the
funding that comes in to be used for prevention treatment
facilities. The City of North Pole, he related, recommends a
new regulatory arm separate from the ABC Board. He stated that
the state should consider issues of licensing, growing,
processing, manufacturing, and establishing regulations for
consistency throughout the state. There are also concerns with
regard to retail sales. He then expressed the need for the
Alaska Landlord Tenant Act to define rights for tenants and
landlords. Also, there need to be regulations regarding
advertisement of marijuana in terms of what is acceptable and
the target market. He then suggested there be a strong minimum
standard for growing, processing, and manufacturing at the state
level. If a borough has different regulations than those
outside of the borough, particularly in terms of the growing or
manufacturing of marijuana and its products, the jurisdiction
with the higher regulatory environment are null and void because
industry can circumvent the standards by moving outside the
boundaries. Therefore, Mayor Ward opined that it's important
for the state to set minimum standards that are consistent
throughout the state. For instance, the state has a minimum
standard for fire, life, and safety that is enforced by a
division of the state, although a municipality can become a
deferred jurisdiction such that they can enforce the regulations
and collect the associated fees. He opined that the
aforementioned is a good model the state could use going
forward. He then related that there has been concern, as has
been heard in Colorado, with regard to the inconsistency among
jurisdictions and the inability of municipalities to effectively
regulate seed to sale of the product. If the municipalities are
asked to regulate like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), that would be a huge cost and burden to the
municipalities. Furthermore, such a situation would lose the
economies of scale the FDA has because everyone has to develop
their own method and have their own regulators. The
aforementioned, he opined, needs to be taken into consideration
by the state, which should be able to work with the
municipalities to create minimum standards.
8:50:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he appreciated the suggestion of
minimum standards statewide and opined that would be the
function of a regulatory board. He then specified that he is
more focused on what should be done at the legislative level.
He asked, referring to Title 29, whether Mayor Ward felt that
the ability to regulate marijuana should be an areawide or
nonareawide power.
MAYOR WARD answered that although the City of North Pole's
council hasn't specifically addressed the issue of areawide
versus nonareawide, the issues it has addressed are supportive
of a nonareawide approach. In fact, the City of North Pole has
moved forward with some of its own regulations with regard to
the definitions of "public consumption" and "hash oil
extraction." Mayor Ward opined that the City of North Pole
Council would be in support of the nonareawide power such that
the city has the ability to regulate itself.
8:52:29 AM
MAYOR WARD then addressed the issue of retail sales, and pointed
out that the resolution relates that the state should develop
the regulatory arm with a minimum standard. However, the retail
sales could be controlled at the municipal level, should there
be consistent regulatory standards at the state level. He
opined that it would be similar to the alcohol or tobacco model.
8:53:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to line 29 of the City of North
Pole's resolution, inquired as to the meaning of the term
"agricultural farm use tax exemption" for locally produced
marijuana.
MAYOR WARD explained that currently there is a tax
credit/exemption as agricultural land is valued as such not at
its commercial value. Therefore, the question is whether the
agricultural land used for marijuana production would be in that
same category. In further response, Mayor Ward confirmed that
he was referring to the property tax valuation for property
assessment.
8:54:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if there has been any discussion
with regard to the cash basis of marijuana businesses.
MAYOR WARD confirmed that is of concern and has been discussed.
8:56:45 AM
LANCE ROBERTS noted that although he is a member of the
Fairbanks North Star Assembly, he is testifying on his own
behalf today. He further noted that he hasn't seen the
legislation, and thus he would only discuss specific policy
matters not anything in specific legislation. He then opined
that strong state regulation is necessary because the Fairbanks
North Star Borough doesn't have a police force while the cities
within the borough do have police forces. The borough relies on
the Alaska State Troopers for [enforcement], and thus state laws
are critical to provide the Alaska State Troopers law with which
to work and provide enforcement outside of the cities. He
informed the committee that he is going to bring an ordinance,
2015-09, before the Fairbanks North Star Borough that will
merely be a placeholder in the borough's code and doesn't
actually have any regulation. He related his hope that not much
would have to be done at the local level because of the
aforementioned enforcement problem with the expectation that the
state would implement the regulations. He characterized the
need for the definition of "public" as critical for law
enforcement. Drawing from his experience with drugs, Mr.
Roberts emphasized that marijuana and alcohol are different and
can't be regulated the same. For instance, he questioned how
one would be able to patronize marijuana smoking clubs and have
a designated driver without some major infrastructure such as
large fans and well ventilated separate rooms for drivers. A
larger issue, he opined, is that with alcohol there is a range
of moderation in which one could, depending upon body weight,
have a drink and drive home without a problem. However, there
isn't such a range [of moderation] with marijuana as one is
impaired even with a small amount of use. He opined that one
who imbibes at a marijuana smoking club can't drive home
unimpaired. Furthermore, it's nearly impossible to not imbibe
at a marijuana smoke club. Mr. Roberts emphasized the need for
the committee to think about the differences between marijuana
and alcohol when discussing regulations so that marijuana isn't
approached only like alcohol. He then expressed support for the
creation of a marijuana control board separate from the ABC
Board, though he also expressed support for the concept of a
local [control] board if that's decided. With regard to
areawide versus nonareawide powers, Mr. Roberts explained that
with a nonareawide power, separate taxing must be created for
that power. He stressed that it's a complicated issue that
interweaves with all code and it's difficult to breakout the
cost. Therefore, if it was a nonareawide power, a different
mill rate would be required so that city residents wouldn't pay
the mill rate. He opined that practically it has to be an
areawide power similar to planning and zoning such that the
cities work with the boroughs. In conclusion, Mr. Roberts
expressed the need for the state to bring forward strong limits
throughout the state in order to avoid border problems.
9:04:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to the [Fairbanks North Star
Borough] ordinance, pointed out that the language on page 2,
line 47, says "receive half of the state registration
application fee". He then asked if that's a request for the
state to break its registration fee or taxes and distribute half
of them to the borough or is there something already in effect
that specifies half will go to the local municipality.
MR. ROBERTS specified that [the language in the ordinance] was
taken out of the initiative by the borough attorneys. The
ordinance, he said, should completely align with the initiative
as it passed.
9:07:14 AM
KELLY WOLF, Member, Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly, informed
the committee that as a member of the Kenai Peninsula Borough
Assembly, he introduced ordinance 2015-02, which would place
before the voters of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, outside of the
incorporated municipalities, the question of whether to allow
the cultivation of marijuana for the intent to resale. The
Kenai Peninsula is a second class borough that doesn't have
zoning authority. During the November 2014 Alaska Municipal
League conference, there was discussion of potential problems
due to the passage of Ballot Measure 2. There was concern with
regard to delayed action by cities and municipalities across the
state with regard to enacting legislation that might prevent the
cultivation, sale, or manufacture of marijuana products after
marijuana is legal and the state develops regulations. There
was mention that municipalities may face a takings lawsuit, and
thus the aforementioned ordinance was introduced to slow the
process until state regulations are in place. Furthermore,
since the Kenai Peninsula Borough doesn't have zoning powers, it
has no ability to restrict where a marijuana farm or cultivation
area is established. The value of property near a marijuana
farm or cultivation area is impacted by it. Mr. Wolf strongly
urged the committee to consider the fact that [the initiative
places] a tremendous burden on some municipalities that don't
have policing or zoning powers, such as the Kenai Peninsula
Borough.
9:13:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND related her understanding from Mayor
Hopkins that the Fairbanks North Star Borough is a second class
borough with strong zoning regulations. However, she understood
Mr. Wolf to have said that the Kenai Peninsula Borough is a
second class borough with no zoning powers.
MR. WOLF specified that the Kenai Peninsula Borough has very
limited zoning. In fact, Mr. Wolf said that to his knowledge
the Kenai Peninsula Borough only has an anadromous habitat
ordinance, which is a zoning ordinance. The Kenai Peninsula
Borough does have a planning commission, but doesn't have zoning
authority per se.
MAYOR HOPKINS informed the committee that the Fairbanks North
Star Borough has a regional comprehensive land use plan and
probably 22 different zones, the largest of which is the general
use zone. Many of the residential areas have been developed in
a general use area that only has two restrictions. Mayor
Hopkins opined that the Fairbanks North Star Borough has very
thorough zoning codes. In response to Chair Tilton, Mayor
Hopkins confirmed that the Fairbanks North Star Borough is a
second class borough with a comprehensive plan that contains
zoning regulations.
MR. WOLF, in response to Chair Tilton, confirmed that the Kenai
Peninsula Borough is a second class borough, but with limited
zoning powers.
9:16:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND surmised then that the Kenai Peninsula
Borough has chosen not to promulgate zoning regulations to the
same degree as the Fairbanks North Star Borough. Therefore, she
inquired as to how the Kenai Peninsula Borough, without zoning
regulations, is preventing junk yards and oil processing
facilities from popping up in residential neighborhoods.
MR. WOLF reiterated that the Kenai Peninsula Borough has an
anadromous habitat ordinance as well as a gravel pit ordinance.
He indicated that the [ordinances] go through the planning
commission and an appeals process. He emphasized that the Kenai
Peninsula Borough encompasses 15 million acres that traverse
private, federal, tribal, municipal, and state properties and
has a population of about 60,000 people. He opined that the
borough would face high revenue expenses to enforce zoning
throughout such a large area. The Kenai Peninsula Borough did
choose to have limited zoning, he confirmed.
9:18:38 AM
PAUL OSTRANDER, Chief of Staff, Office of the Mayor, Kenai
Peninsula Borough, informed the committee that in addition to
the gravel pit and anadromous habitat ordinances the Kenai
Peninsula Borough does have a local option zone, which is
essentially spot zoning. There are probably less than 10 such
local option zones. The Kenai Peninsula Borough also has an
ordinance limiting pig farms. Mr. Ostrander opined that
although the Kenai Peninsula Borough has zoning powers similar
to the Fairbanks North Star Borough, they aren't instituted to
the level of those of the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
9:20:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the Kenai Peninsula Borough
has discussed whether it wants the local option and other
controls to be an areawide power so the borough could make the
decision for the entire borough, including those areas within
the municipalities, or whether the borough wants to be able to
exercise control outside the other municipalities.
MR. WOLF answered that the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly has
not discussed that. He explained that he focused [the
resolution] outside of the municipalities because each
municipality has its own elected council and should make the
decision per Ballot Measure 2.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON encouraged all boroughs to have the
discussion and provide feedback as to whether the local option
should be areawide or nonareawide because the legislature will
have to clarify the aforementioned in Title 29.
9:24:00 AM
MR. OSTRANDER clarified that his comments are only on behalf of
the administration of the borough. Mr. Ostrander related his
opinion that generally the boroughs should be provided with
nonareawide powers. He acknowledged that municipalities feel
the need to have local control. Since the Kenai Peninsula
Borough's municipalities have their own law enforcement
agencies, he opined that it's appropriate for them to have many
of the controls. Mr. Ostrander expressed concern with having a
local regulatory authority at the municipal level. The state,
he said, needs to establish a primary structure and the options
of the local regulatory authority including an option for the
municipalities. However, the requirement of having a regulatory
authority is of concern. He expressed the need for marijuana to
be regulated as closely as possible to how alcohol is regulated,
understanding some things can't be regulated in the same manner
and understanding that most of the regulatory authority [and
framework] for alcohol has been established by the state.
Referring to the ability of an individual to possess six
marijuana plants and to assist others with the growing of
plants, Mr. Ostrander suggested the need to establish a
household limit. He then opined that although municipalities
should be given the option of establishing their own bail
schedule, it would be helpful for the state itself to establish
a bail schedule. In the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the Alaska
State Troopers will enforce this law. The Alaska State Troopers
generally enforce the state bail schedules as it's much more
difficult for them to enforce the local ordinances. Mr.
Ostrander related that the Kenai Peninsula Borough attorney
expressed concern with AS 17.38.110, which requires any adopted
[municipal] procedures are subject to all the requirements of
the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), AS 44.62. The concern
is that AS 44.62 is difficult and complex as it's designed for
use by the state rather than municipalities, which have their
own administrative procedures, processes, permits, and other
regulatory matters. Therefore, the recommendation is to either
delete the reference to the APA or provide an option to
municipalities that read, "unless provided otherwise by local
ordinance."
9:29:36 AM
CHAIR TILTON reminded everyone that criminal aspects of law will
not be addressed in this committee, but any such related
comments will be passed on to the appropriate committee(s).
9:29:57 AM
MR. OSTRANDER then expressed the need for the state to establish
one definition of "public" for the entire state in order to
avoid confusion with various locales having different
definitions.
9:31:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the bail schedule refers to fine
amounts for violations not criminal actions.
MR. OSTRANDER posed an example in which a local municipality
gives a ticket for public possession of marijuana. At this
point, the individual can't pay the ticket but rather would have
to go to court because there is no set bail schedule.
Therefore, if the state established a bail schedule, it would
expedite the enforcement process and the ticketed individual
would be able to pay the fine and not have to go to court.
9:32:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON then asked whether the borough has
considered the public consumption of nonedible marijuana
products, such as lotions, tinctures, infused toothpicks, breast
strips, etcetera.
MR. OSTRANDER replied no, adding that the borough would look for
direction from the state because the state would have the
expertise and structure to set up much of this, whereas the
borough simply does not. In further response to Representative
Seaton, Mr. Ostrander confirmed that the Kenai Peninsula Borough
wants the term "public" defined. Although the borough isn't
providing specific suggestions regarding the definition of
"public," he related that the Kenai Peninsula Borough would
generally accept the comments of the Fairbanks North Star
Borough.
9:34:07 AM
CHAIR TILTON thanked those who provided comments today.
9:35:06 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:35 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CityofNorthPole, Res-15-08.pdf |
HCRA 2/5/2015 8:00:00 AM |
City of North Pole Resolution re: Marijuana |