Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
02/07/2015 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
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 7, 2015
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cathy Tilton, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Benjamin Nageak
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Dan Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Shelley Hughes
Representative Lora Reinbold
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF MARIJUANA
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DENISE MICHELS, Mayor
City of Nome
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the municipal regulation of
marijuana.
SHIRLEY MARQUARDT, Mayor
City of Unalaska
Unalaska, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the municipal regulation of
marijuana.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
Representative Tilton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of municipal regulation
of marijuana, provided information.
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the municipal regulation of
marijuana.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:25 AM
CHAIR CATHY TILTON called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m.
Representatives Seaton, Hughes, Nageak, Ortiz, Drummond, and
Tilton were present at the call to order.
^PRESENTATION(S): Municipal Regulation of Marijuana
PRESENTATION(S): Municipal Regulation of Marijuana
8:06:01 AM
CHAIR TILTON announced that the only order of business would be
presentations regarding the municipal regulation of marijuana.
8:06:51 AM
DENISE MICHELS, Mayor, City of Nome, began by pointing out that
the marijuana law poses some challenges and opportunities for
municipalities. The City of Nome's chief of police and attorney
have been hard at work coordinating with the Alaska Municipal
League (AML) on the regulations that will impact local
government, profit, and commerce. The city looks to the state
for reasonable regulations that comply with the federal mandate.
As a local government, the City of Nome is dealing with the
personal use and commercialization issues. The City of Nome
wants an open public process to comply with the public
initiative. The city is considering the definition of "public
use," the creation of an advisory board, and a fine schedule
with regard to personal use. The city will look to the
legislature [for guidance] in terms of commercial use. Mayor
Michels then expressed concern that many cities in rural Alaska
don't have access to running water, and thus the threat of fires
from oils is of concern. Furthermore, the lack of law
enforcement in many rural areas is of concern in terms of how
communities will regulate the new laws. She expressed the hope
that the state's local government specialists will work with
communities to update their ordinances and fine schedules now
rather than waiting until the legislature is done, particularly
since the personal use goes into effect this month. The impact
on taxation powers is also of concern. Therefore, the city is
reviewing what can be done to offset the expenses that will
arise for law enforcement for inspections. She questioned how
the [duties of the state health inspector] will be carried out
in rural communities. The City of Nome, she related, has a drug
dog that will now have to be retrained and the entire process
will have to be revamped. Mayor Michels, in response to Chair
Tilton, informed the committee that the City of Nome is a first
class city in an unorganized borough and all the villages in the
region are second class cities.
8:11:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that there are
different [views] with regard to the local option and whether it
should be an areawide or nonareawide power. He then inquired as
to whether the City of Nome is located in a borough.
MAYOR MICHELS clarified the City of Nome is located in an
unorganized borough.
8:12:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to what Mayor Michels meant
when she expressed the need for help clarifying the federal
mandate as related to the law.
MAYOR MICHELS explained that under the Drug Free Act in the
Workplace federal funds are received when in compliance with the
act. Many local villages in the area receive federal funds, and
therefore local government specialists from the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED) would be
helpful to update the personnel policies and ordinances.
8:13:18 AM
MAYOR MICHELS, in response to Chair Tilton, clarified that the
city is a subsidiary of the state and within the city limits it
has the power to define its ordinances, rules, and regulations.
8:14:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled testimony from boroughs that were
concerned with cities having control within their city limits
because there could be different regulations within the city
limits and the borough lands. He asked whether the City of
Nome, an unorganized borough, or the second class cities have
expressed concern regarding whether [having different
regulations within city and borough land] would be any more
problematic that it already is with alcohol.
MAYOR MICHELS confirmed that the City of Nome has been holding
discussions on the aforementioned, which is of concern. With
regard to commercialization, one suggestion being discussed with
Representative Foster is to create a 25-mile buffer zone from
the city boundary with regard to the local option. In further
response to Representative Seaton, Mayor Michels agreed to
provide the committee with the aforementioned proposal.
8:17:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK recalled that outside the city limits of
an unorganized borough, the state is responsible/has
jurisdiction.
8:17:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, recalling the mention of commercial use
and lack of law enforcement, asked whether the marijuana local
option creates anything different than what exists for the
alcohol local option.
MAYOR MICHELS confirmed the concern is that the responsibility
for law enforcement in an unorganized borough would fall to the
Alaska State Troopers. She informed the committee that the
Bering Straits region is the size of West Virginia. The 8
Alaska State Troopers who serve the [unorganized borough] can't
be present in all 17 communities [of the unorganized
borough/region] at once.
8:19:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned attention to the consequence for
violating a commercial [marijuana] license, such as with a
liquor license. He asked if the possibility of a revocation of
license rather than a fine would address the problem of
immediate law enforcement.
MAYOR MICHELS opined that consistent enforcement could address
that. However, she opined that the [difficulties surrounding]
enforcement and regulations would likely cause people to
continue to work until they are caught.
8:20:37 AM
MAYOR MICHELS, in response to Representative Drummond, clarified
that there are 17 villages in the unorganized borough some of
which are dry, damp, and wet.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if Mayor Michels expected the dry
villages to forbid commercial marijuana operations in their
boundaries.
MAYOR MICHELS replied yes, noting that she has heard many of the
leaders in the region oppose any commercialization [of
marijuana]. She reiterated the need for local government
specialists to help the villages [implement] a vote, create an
ordinance, or move through the procedures to ban
[commercialization of marijuana].
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND pointed out that per the Act, after
February 24, 2015, personal use in one's home will be legal
throughout the state.
MAYOR MICHELS acknowledged that is the case, but reiterated that
many of the local communities haven't had the opportunity to
update their ordinances to define public use.
8:23:16 AM
SHIRLEY MARQUARDT, Mayor, City of Unalaska, began by opining
that she didn't believe those who voted yes on Ballot Measure 2
had any clue what they were really voting on, which she
characterized as a Pandora's box. She informed the committee
that although Unalaska is located in an unorganized borough, it
has no neighbors. Therefore, the ordinance that Unalaska is
considering will only affect it. Unalaska has chosen to address
personal use and define "public", which is necessary to address
by February 24th. She opined that the City of Unalaska's
nonsmoking ordinance will help because marijuana can be tied
into that and a decision as to whether the areas for public use
should be increased can be made. Mayor Marquardt informed the
committee that the City of Unalaska will place before residents
a change to its housing ordinances such that personal use isn't
allowed in city-funded housing inhabited by city employees. She
opined that there are some small communities and villages within
the [unorganized] borough that won't have the wherewithal to
perform enforcement, permitting, etcetera. Therefore, it may
make sense in this case for the borough to establish the rules
while it may not for other situations. Mayor Marquardt then
suggested that the legislature should concentrate on creating a
new board or board through the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)
Board that continues the current process used by the ABC Board
that provides for public review of permits up for
reauthorization. She then opined that a permit for a commercial
establishment that sells edibles should be up for review
annually. She surmised that the City of Unalaska will choose
not to allow the cultivation of marijuana for commercial uses or
sale of edibles. She expressed the need for the state to
address the edibles issue and to ban butane hash oil. She then
expressed the need for some sort of quality control process that
tests for pesticides, other drugs, and additives in the
marijuana sold in the state. She informed the committee that
the City of Unalaska has already had five folks seeking permits.
Mayor Marquardt related her belief that proponents of the
legalization of marijuana are very loud and forceful, and thus
she predicted they would charge the legislature with not doing
enough or not doing enough fast enough. To which she expressed
the hope the legislature would say it takes its time to perform
a full analysis of the public policy it sets to ensure there
aren't any unintended consequences.
8:31:15 AM
CHAIR TILTON noted that there have been discussions with the
[Marijuana Policy Project] in Washington, D.C., regarding issues
specific to Alaska.
8:31:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ inquired as to the City of Unalaska's
"public use" definition.
MAYOR MARQUARDT related that the City of Unalaska drafted that
definition with the help of the city's long-time attorney,
Brooks Chandler, who has also been working on the issue
statewide. She explained the City of Unalaska took its existing
ordinance for public places in terms of tobacco. The definition
of public place in terms of tobacco is 20 feet in front of the
entrance of a building. Furthermore, tobacco cannot be used on
city or school property. She informed the committee that the
city is trying to determine how far it can go with the
definition of "public place." There has been the suggestion
that "public use" is anywhere that's in the public's view.
Someone using a marijuana product inside their home but in view
of those outside, say in front of a picture window, can't be
[considered a public place]. However, using a marijuana product
in the front yard, say, would be problematic. Mayor Marquardt
offered to provide the committee with the draft language the
City of Unalaska will be considering.
8:33:51 AM
HEATH HILYARD, Staff, Representative Tilton, Alaska State
Legislature, noted that [he] participated in a work session in
which Brooks Chandler participated. Although every municipality
will be allowed to have its own definition through ordinance,
the work session determined it necessary in AS 17.38 to make
reference to AS 11.81.900, which includes the following
definition pertaining to criminal law:
(53) "public place" means a place to which the
public or a substantial group of persons has access
and includes highways, transportation facilities,
schools, places of amusement or business, parks,
playgrounds, prisons, and hallways, lobbies, and other
portions of apartment houses and hotels not
constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual
residence;
MR. HILYARD related that the municipal attorneys recommended
making the aforementioned the standard definition as it pertains
to marijuana. He informed the committee that such a definition
will likely be included in a forthcoming committee substitute.
He acknowledged that the cities can decide to take make their
own definition more restrictive.
8:36:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled Mayor Marquardt wanting to
[prohibit the use of marijuana] within residences owned through
the state. He opined that he isn't sure how far [the
definition] can go, particularly with the [Alaska] Supreme Court
decision regarding privacy and use within the home. He surmised
the matter will ultimately be a court case.
MAYOR MARQUARDT explained that the City of Unalaska has an 8-
plex, a 4-plex, an 8-unit apartment building, and two duplexes.
For City of Unalaska employees to live in those buildings, the
tenant lease requires several things. The City of Unalaska has
chosen to include in its tenant lease a requirement prohibiting
the use of marijuana in the publicly owned housing.
8:39:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if the City of Unalaska forbids
the consumption of alcohol or smoking of cigarettes in the city
owned housing.
MAYOR MARQUARDT replied that the use of alcohol is not
forbidden, but smoking is not allowed in [the city owned
housing].
8:40:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled the City of Unalaska is
considering the prohibition of the sale of edibles within its
boundaries, which seems to be at odds with the ABC Board's
consideration of licenses. The definition of marijuana
basically includes every product that includes
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). He then asked if the City of
Unalaska has had discussions with the ABC Board regarding
whether a community can prohibit specific products if the city
doesn't entirely opt out of commercialization.
MAYOR MARQUARDT responded that she wasn't aware that any such
discussions directly with the ABC Board had been held. The
notion with regard to permitting for commercial use, she
relayed, would require obtaining a permit from the municipality
to sell either marijuana to be inhaled or THC in an edible form.
The City of Unalaska doesn't want to issue a permit for the sale
of edibles. Although she acknowledged that marijuana in any
form could come into the community, those who smoke wouldn't be
able to do so in a public place whereas she didn't know how one
could enforce the consumption of edibles. Therefore, the City
of Unalaska would rather not permit such. She then asked
whether the level of THC in edible or inhaled marijuana products
could be regulated. She reiterated that the City of Unalaska
will try not to permit the sale of edibles or marijuana for
commercial use.
8:44:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that currently it appears a
license would allow any of the aspects of marijuana, including
the ability to manufacture, create, and refine products. He
related his understanding that other committees are considering
the serving size, the amount of milligrams of THC, and amount of
servings in a package including the child proof packaging
aspect.
8:46:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ related his understanding that the City of
Unalaska will move toward not permitting any commercial activity
and the concerns regarding edibles are in terms of private
possession.
MAYOR MARQUARDT (indisc.)
8:47:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK opined the interaction between the cities
and boroughs vary. However, the unorganized boroughs have to
follow the state's lead.
MAYOR MARQUARDT noted her agreement. The regions of the state
can be extremely different such that even within boroughs there
are communities with different ideas as to what's important to
them or how to provide services to their communities. In terms
of the City of Unalaska, the property outside of the city is
owned by Alaska Native corporations and require the use of
permits.
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK pointed out that not only are there
regional corporations, there are also village corporations with
jurisdiction on their lands.
8:50:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled a discussion from an earlier
hearing regarding the possibility of a 25-mile buffer zone. He
asked if the City of Unalaska has discussed the expansion of the
city limits in order that the city's ordinances cover a buffer
zone.
MAYOR MARQUARDT answered no, adding that it would require the
City of Unalaska to come into agreement with the Ounalashka
Corporation to purchase or take property. The City of Unalaska,
she opined, doesn't believe the aforementioned is necessary
because the entire community, business community, and
residential community are incorporated within the City of
Unalaska's city limits and directly outside that is the
Ounalashka Corporation land, which is considering its own
protections.
8:53:19 AM
The committee took an at ease from 8:53 a.m. to 8:57 a.m.
8:58:01 AM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), provided the committee with the "Local Government
Primer," which provides the basic tenets of government. She
highlighted that pages 4-5 specify all the powers of cities
according to their status. The map on page 6 shows the large
area of the state that makes up the unorganized borough. Pages
8-9 are a chart of the powers and duties of boroughs. Ms.
Wasserman emphasized that AML simply offers municipalities
information and helps municipalities coordinate between each
other. In fact, AML will hold a marijuana summit on February
17th during which there will be speakers from the states of
Washington, Colorado, and Alaska. She specified that AML's main
interest is protecting municipalities and ensuring that a local
option is one of the top tenets of anything coming out of the
legislature.
MS. WASSERMAN opined that local governments need flexibility in
terms of dealing with the positive and negative aspects
resulting from the legalization of marijuana. She then turned
to the borough and city issue, pointing out that the assembly
for the unorganized borough is the sitting assembly of the
unorganized borough. She then posed a scenario in which an
individual wants to permit a growing facility in Glennallen,
which is not an organized city nor is it located in an organized
borough. Therefore, the legislature is going to be in charge of
establishing the rules for a place such as Glennallen and there
are many such places throughout the state. The majority of the
state's second class cities, as well as many unorganized
communities, are located in the unorganized borough. The
legislature, she opined, is going to find that what works in
Glennallen may not work elsewhere. She further opined that
there will be a large jurisdictional issue [with regard to the
Alaska Native corporation lands]. Not only will municipalities
be responsible for establishing some rules and laws to address
the legalization of marijuana, the state will as well because
the state will likely have to sit as the assembly of the
unorganized borough. To date, the legislature hasn't sat as the
assembly for the unorganized borough.
MS. WASSERMAN recalled testimony from boroughs relating that
public meetings and open houses on the legalization of marijuana
were packed, which she opined illustrates that local residents
rely on local government to make laws and rules. She then
recalled Representative Nageak mentioning jurisdictional lines
and the confusion that could be created. However, she opined
it's clear that municipalities can only opt out of the sale and
retail aspect of marijuana. She said she didn't consider the
jurisdiction to be confusing as people will merely go to where
marijuana is sold, particularly since use is allowed throughout
the state. The law refers to local governments; it doesn't
specify what kind of local government. Furthermore, opening up
Title 29 could open a Pandora's Box on everything else because
each borough treats cities differently. Again, the decision
should be left to the local option. She then pointed out that
many communities receive federal grants, which could be in
danger according to what regulations the [federal government]
choses.
MS. WASSERMAN then moved on to edibles and hash oils and
Governor Walker's memorandum to Senator Stoltze outlining that
he believes the legislature should address the following:
keeping marijuana away from underage persons; protecting public
health and safety; respecting privacy and constitutional rights;
and preventing illegal sales and export of marijuana and
marijuana products. She opined that the state needs to help
[local governments] with those items, particularly since local
governments don't have the capacity to test and inspect edibles.
With regard to the situation in which an individual processes
[marijuana] without a permit in a community without law
enforcement, she opined that it would be a civil offense to
which Alaska State Troopers won't respond in the small
communities. She emphasized her concern with regard to how this
will impact small communities, which have little capacity to
follow through and make things work. She expressed further
concern that things would be tailored for the larger
communities. There needs to be discussion as to how to provide
residents of small communities the protection they deserve.
MS. WASSERMAN pointed out that although municipalities have the
ability to create a local regulatory board, the financial crisis
in the state lends itself for utilizing the ABC Board, which has
expertise with substance use. Most of the impacts from the
legalization of marijuana will be felt at the municipal level.
Therefore, there will be discussion as to how the municipal
level will pay in terms of police, EMS, fire, and health care.
Sales taxes are already levied by boroughs and first class
cities and few second class cities levy taxes. An excise tax is
a possibility. Municipalities, she noted, could seek a share of
the $50 per ounce charge that goes to the Department of Revenue.
She questioned who would pay for the blood test to detect
marijuana. With regard to the expansion of city limits, she
informed the committee that annexation is a long process and
marijuana likely won't figure into it. Recalling discussion of
the possibility of a buffer zone, Ms. Wasserman informed the
committee there is no legal means for such, and thus such action
would require a new legal term in statute or the existing
annexation option would have to be used.
9:17:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND, recalling that Dillingham tried to
annex nearby land in relation to fish taxes, asked whether the
annexation was approved.
MS. WASSERMAN answered that she didn't know, but noted that
almost every annexation is about taxation in some form.
9:18:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND then asked whether the cash basis of the
marijuana business has been discussed.
MS. WASSERMAN expressed her concern that a cash business denotes
a "black market." She expressed further concern with how the
Department of Revenue (DOR) will perform taxation with a cash
business.
CHAIR TILTON related her understanding that Colorado estimated
that in the first year marijuana sales would generate $139
million, and in nine months marijuana sales generated $20
million. Therefore, she acknowledged that [taxation] could be
challenging.
9:19:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND reminded the committee that she visited
a marijuana dispensary in Seattle, Washington. She
characterized the dispensary as a very high-tech business with
each marijuana bud sealed with a serial number. In fact, the
store doesn't even smell of marijuana. Furthermore, the point
of sale (POS) system required by the State of Washington for
every store allows the state the ability to look at sales, which
does not include customer names as it's a cash transaction.
Moreover, they don't accept credit cards and may not even accept
checks. Payroll is also paid in cash.
MS. WASSERMAN opined that the state probably couldn't make that
work in communities other than Juneau, Fairbanks, and Anchorage,
which is of concern.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND interjected that the state's inability
[to look at marijuana sales] illustrates the state's lack of a
robust Internet service as well as the fact that many
communities don't function on a cash basis.
9:21:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK suggested that the tribal government may
become involved in some fashion.
MS. WASSERMAN opined that one of the positive aspects of the
initiative is that it may bring to light the municipal and
tribal issues that have long existed, but have been ignored.
9:23:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, addressing the concern that law
enforcement won't take place, pointed out that there are often
busts of the importation of alcohol in dry communities. If
marijuana is regulated as alcohol, [he assumed it would be
enforced] as would any of the local options available to
communities.
MS. WASSERMAN clarified that she has looked at the illegal
importation versus little issues that arise in a community on a
daily basis. She suggested that it's sometimes easier to
address the illegal importation because it usually starts from a
large community and involves a carrier. However, there is no
help for day-to-day small issues at the small community level.
For instance, when she was the mayor of a small community, she
received a call at 2:00 a.m. to deal with a gun fight between
large drunken fishermen. Those in the small communities are
left with no one to help them and no way to address such
problems and this [Act] adds another possible avenue to create
problems.
9:26:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he appreciated Ms. Wasserman's
points. However, he opined that illegal operations, illegal
importation, or operating outside of a license is related to
bootlegging rather than to personal use. He expressed
confidence that those who want a license, and will operate
within the terms if there is suspension and revocation of the
license, rather than just a fine.
MS. WASSERMAN opined that the legislature can iron out how the
civil offenses would be enforced in small communities [without
law enforcement].
9:29:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned whether municipalities should
consider a standard [blood test] for impaired driving rather
than one related to the specific substance used that generated
the impaired driving.
MS. WASSERMAN confirmed there have been some discussions about
the aforementioned, which she characterized as a great point.
She said there is likely something already on the books that
addresses this. In fact, there are already reckless and
careless driving statutes. She emphasized that impaired driving
is impaired driving, no matter the reason. Furthermore, trying
to define why one is driving impaired may create more problems,
she opined.
9:33:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether the issue of impairment is
going to be addressed by the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that he believes the legal aspect
will be addressed in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He
reiterated that at this point, it seems [that the standard could
be] impairment with field impairment tests, such that the actual
actions of people are considered rather than what might have
been the cause of the action.
9:35:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND related her understanding that there is
a portion of THC that [causes] the impairment, and another
portion of the chemical specifies that someone partook of it
during a certain time period in the past. The impairment
chemical, she further related, only remains viable in the blood
for a number of hours and there is a structure for judging that.
She agreed with Representative Seaton that the aforementioned
isn't the purview of this committee.
MS. WASSERMAN related her belief that's very important and goes
along with Representative Seaton's comments. She opined that
having separate [impaired] driving tests might be setting up the
state for lawsuits. At some point [the standard] needs to be
tight. She then noted her agreement with Representative Seaton
that the impaired driving offense would be tighter.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted her agreement with Representative
Seaton as well regarding having an impaired driving offense.
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK remarked that someday, when there are
driverless cars, driving impaired will be moot.
9:39:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled testimony that sales tax on
alcohol is limited by statute to be the same rate as everything
else. He then asked whether municipalities want the ability to
have a different excise tax than the general sales tax amount
for marijuana and alcohol, or do they want it to be limited to
the general sales tax amount for marijuana.
MS. WASSERMAN pointed out the sales tax for boroughs, first
class cities, and a few second class cities is not very high.
Therefore, communities will receive a small return for the
predicted issues they will face. She then reminded the
committee that a sales tax has to be fair across the board for
all purchases. An excise tax has been discussed, she opined,
because it might provide communities more ability to cover the
expenses [related to the legalization of marijuana]. She said
there isn't definite knowledge as to the costs [related to the
legalization of marijuana], there is the need for flexibility.
9:42:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether cities currently have the
ability to establish an excise tax on alcohol or is that
prevented. He then asked what types of local governments have
the ability to establish an excise tax.
MS. WASSERMAN said she would have to review Title 29, but could
provide that information to the committee. In further response
to Representative Seaton, Ms. Wasserman mentioned that Anchorage
just went through an alcohol tax issues
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND informed the committee that when the
Anchorage Assembly discussed placing an initiative to raise a
small percentage of taxes from alcohol in order to address the
negative impacts of alcohol in Anchorage. However, the
Anchorage Assembly couldn't overcome the heavy industry
pressure, which resulted in the assembly setting it aside.
Therefore, she opined that such a change would have to come from
the citizens rather than the governing body.
9:44:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that Anchorage is placing
something on the ballot for approval by the voters. He then
asked whether municipalities have the ability to establish an
excise tax by ordinance or a vote of the people.
MS. WASSERMAN informed the committee that for almost everything
taxable under state law, municipalities have different rules.
Although for most [taxes] municipalities have to go through the
voters, she clarified that she needed to review Title 29 because
some taxes aren't allowable by the state.
9:47:27 AM
MS. WASSERMAN, in response to Chair Tilton, said that on
February 17th, 1:00-5:00 p.m., there will be an AML conference
on marijuana in the Treadwell Room. The fee to attend is $25.
CHAIR TILTON announced that the committee will not be meeting on
February 17th so that members can attend the aforementioned AML
conference.
9:48:42 AM
MAYOR MICHELS, in closing, pointed out that the current law
doesn't include a provision for tribal law, and thus it may need
to be added.
9:49:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if Mayor Michels was referring to
the ability to expand a local option to village corporations or
tribal governments.
MAYOR MICHELS informed the committee that under current law
there is no ability for tribal governments to create ordinances
to make any laws within the community; city governments have the
ability to do so.
9:50:45 AM
MAYOR MARQUARDT noted her agreement with Mayor Michels in terms
of the complexity of the issue. She opined that the saying,
"The devil is in the details." has never been more true. She
then reiterated the need for the legislature to take its time on
this issue.
9:52:25 AM
CHAIR TILTON stated that the goal of the committee is to listen
to the local governments with regard to how the legislature can
help them.
9:52:43 AM
MS. WASSERMAN related her appreciation for the committee asking
the communities to be involved, particularly since one of her
main complaints over the years has been that most decisions made
about municipalities has been done without much comment being
sought from the municipalities.
9:53:58 AM
CHAIR TILTON agreed this is a complex matter. She then
highlighted the following points that arose at today's meeting:
municipal and tribal government issues; public safety issues in
smaller communities versus larger communities; and that this may
be the first time in history the legislature sits as the
assembly for the unorganized borough.
9:54:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, regarding the relationship between the
tribal governments and the cities, said he is totally unprepared
as to how to address that issue. Therefore, he suggested that
the committee solicit tribal and local communities to obtain
suggestions to address the issues.
MS. WASSERMAN characterized the difficulties [between the tribal
governments and the cities] as a larger issue that could be
solved with one or two decisions. She related her understanding
that the current administration is working on such matters, and
thus she encouraged the legislature to work with them. Ms.
Wasserman noted that some municipalities and tribal governments
have a good relationship and work together because they have to
do so. She then emphasized that one of the large looming issues
the state hasn't addressed is with regard to who takes over the
services that become unavailable due to the reductions in state
funding to municipalities.
9:58:52 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:58 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| LocalGovernmentinAlaska032004.pdf |
HCRA 2/7/2015 8:00:00 AM |
Guide to Local Government in Alaska |