Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS 519

03/28/2020 09:00 AM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
09:09:34 AM Start
09:10:17 AM SB52
10:17:10 AM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Recessed to a Call of the Chair --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 52(FIN) AM Out of Committee
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                      March 28, 2020                                                                                            
                         9:09 a.m.                                                                                              
9:09:34 AM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Johnston called the House Finance Committee                                                                            
meeting to order at 9:09 a.m.                                                                                                   
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Co-Chair                                                                                      
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Ben Carpenter                                                                                                    
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
Representative Gary Knopp                                                                                                       
Representative Bart LeBon                                                                                                       
Representative Kelly Merrick (via teleconference)                                                                               
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard                                                                                         
Representative Cathy Tilton                                                                                                     
Representative Adam Wool                                                                                                        
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair                                                                                            
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Senator Peter Micciche, Sponsor; Konrad Jackson, Staff,                                                                         
Senator Peter Micciche; Senator Peter Micciche, Sponsor.                                                                        
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
Doug Wooliver, Deputy  Administrative Director, Alaska Court                                                                    
System;  Ryan  Fitzpatrick, Temporary  Legislative  Liaison,                                                                    
Department  of Revenue;  Glenn Klinkhart,  Interim Director,                                                                    
Alcohol   and  Marijuana   Control  Office,   Department  of                                                                    
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.                                                                                   
CSSB 52(FIN) am                                                                                                                 
          ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL; ALCOHOL REG                                                                               
          CSSB 52(FIN)  was REPORTED  out of  committee with                                                                    
          three   "do   pass"  recommendations,   five   "no                                                                    
          recommendation"  recommendations, and  one "amend"                                                                    
          recommendation and  with two  previously published                                                                    
          fiscal impact notes: FN6 (CED)  and FN8 (AJS); one                                                                    
          previously   published  indeterminate   note:  FN7                                                                    
          (REV);  and one  previously  published zero  note:                                                                    
          FN9 (SFIN/Combined).                                                                                                  
Co-Chair Johnston reviewed the meeting agenda.                                                                                  
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 52(FIN) am                                                                                             
     "An Act  relating to  alcoholic beverages;  relating to                                                                    
     the  regulation  of   manufacturers,  wholesalers,  and                                                                    
     retailers   of   alcoholic   beverages;   relating   to                                                                    
     licenses,    endorsements,   and    permits   involving                                                                    
     alcoholic   beverages;  relating   to  common   carrier                                                                    
     approval to  transport or deliver  alcoholic beverages;                                                                    
     relating  to  the  Alcoholic  Beverage  Control  Board;                                                                    
     relating  to  offenses involving  alcoholic  beverages;                                                                    
     amending  Rule 17(h),  Alaska  Rules  of Minor  Offense                                                                    
     Procedure; and providing for an effective date."                                                                           
9:10:17 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Johnston  communicated that the committee  would be                                                                    
hearing  amendments  during the  meeting.  She  asked for  a                                                                    
review of the fiscal notes first.                                                                                               
DOUG  WOOLIVER, DEPUTY  DIRECTOR, ALASKA  COURT SYSTEM  (via                                                                    
teleconference), reviewed  the fiscal  note from  the Alaska                                                                    
Court System [OMB Component Number  768] that included three                                                                    
months of  an attorney's  time. He  explained that  the bill                                                                    
would  change  approximately   63  misdemeanor  offences  to                                                                    
violations  or  minor   offences.  Additionally,  the  court                                                                    
system  would adopt  a bail  schedule, change  instructions,                                                                    
and  reprogram  the  computer system  for  the  new  offence                                                                    
codes. The  work would require  a three-month position  at a                                                                    
one-time expense.                                                                                                               
9:11:44 AM                                                                                                                    
RYAN FITZPATRICK, TEMPORARY  LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT                                                                    
OF REVENUE (via  teleconference), reviewed the indeterminate                                                                    
fiscal note  [OMB Component Number  2476] by  the Department                                                                    
of Revenue (DOR).  He detailed that Section 155  of the bill                                                                    
would  extend the  existing alcohol  tax of  $2.50/gallon to                                                                    
holders of a new winery  direct shipment license. The change                                                                    
would  extend the  tax to  incoming out-of-state  shipments,                                                                    
which were not currently taxed.  The department did not have                                                                    
data on  the volume of  shipments coming in  through out-of-                                                                    
state direct  shipments; therefore,  DOR could  not estimate                                                                    
the revenue  change amount.  The change  would result  in an                                                                    
increase  in revenue  collected. Additionally,  there was  a                                                                    
small   capital  item   that   would  take   care  of   some                                                                    
reprogramming  changes in  the  Tax  Division's Tax  Revenue                                                                    
Management  System and  the  outward  facing revenue  online                                                                    
portal, which allowed taxpayers to file tax returns online.                                                                     
9:13:15 AM                                                                                                                    
GLENN  KLINKHART, INTERIM  DIRECTOR,  ALCOHOL and  MARIJUANA                                                                    
CONTROL  OFFICE,  DEPARTMENT   OF  COMMERCE,  COMMUNITY  AND                                                                    
ECONOMIC  DEVELOPMENT,  (via teleconference),  reviewed  the                                                                    
fiscal  impact note  [OMB Component  Number  3119] from  the                                                                    
Department of Commerce,  Community and Economic Development.                                                                    
The note showed a 4 percent  increase over the past year. He                                                                    
detailed that  the Alcohol and Marijuana  Control Office was                                                                    
fully  funded  by incoming  receipts.  The  fiscal note  was                                                                    
designed  to follow  the same  process. The  changes in  the                                                                    
bill would  generate slightly more receipt  revenue than the                                                                    
resulting cost.                                                                                                                 
9:14:28 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Johnston noted  that Amendments 1 and  2 would move                                                                    
to the  bottom of the  list [note:  Amendments 1 and  2 were                                                                    
withdrawn at approximately 10:10 a.m.].                                                                                         
Representative      Knopp     WITHDREW      Amendment     3,                                                                    
31-LS00004\E.A.25 (Radford, 3/25/20)(copy on file).                                                                             
9:15:08 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Wool   MOVED    to   ADOPT   Amendment   4,                                                                    
31-LS00004\E.A.10 (Radford, 3/23/20)(copy on file):                                                                             
     Page 70, line 13:                                                                                                          
     Delete "12,000"                                                                                                            
     Insert "9,000"                                                                                                             
     Page 70, line 29:                                                                                                          
     Delete "12,000"                                                                                                            
     Insert "9,000"                                                                                                             
     Page 71, line 14:                                                                                                          
     Delete "12,000"                                                                                                            
     Insert 119,000"                                                                                                            
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED.                                                                                                      
Representative Wool began to review  the amendment [note: an                                                                    
"at ease" was taken to fix the audio quality].                                                                                  
9:15:39 AM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
9:16:21 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Wool explained  the  amendment. He  detailed                                                                    
that alcohol license limits were  one per 3,000 [people]. He                                                                    
was unclear whether the limit was  one per 3,000 per type or                                                                    
three  per  9,000  per type  related  to  manufacturing  and                                                                    
tasting  rooms.  He knew  the  number  had been  changed  to                                                                    
12,000, but  he did  not know what  the previous  number had                                                                    
been. He  was concerned  the bill  was developing  an equity                                                                    
situation  for  manufacturing  and  tasting  room  licenses,                                                                    
which   already  existed   for  BDLs   [beverage  dispensary                                                                    
licenses].  He explained  that it  was part  of the  problem                                                                    
with  the  so  called  bar wars.  He  elaborated  that  some                                                                    
[licenses], due  to population limits and  the quota system,                                                                    
had significant value and people  paid to get into the game.                                                                    
He  expounded  that numerous  new  players  had entered  the                                                                    
Representative  Wool understood  that  under the  "bargain,"                                                                    
the brewers would  receive expanded hours but  would give up                                                                    
the  population  limit in  order  to  reduce the  number  of                                                                    
breweries. He  noted it  was a bargain  the brewers  did not                                                                    
want  to  make. He  asserted  that  the bargain  would  help                                                                    
brewers. For example, if a town  of 20,000 had a brewery, it                                                                    
would not  be possible  for another brewery  to open  if the                                                                    
limit was  one per 12,000.  He stated it would  mean reduced                                                                    
competition.  He  highlighted  that  the  bill  sponsor  had                                                                    
stated he loved competition at the previous bill hearing.                                                                       
Representative   Wool   believed   providing   an   expanded                                                                    
population  cap,   which  would   mean  fewer   brewers  and                                                                    
distillery  tasting  rooms,  would  reduce  competition  and                                                                    
increase  the value  of  licenses. He  believed  it was  the                                                                    
wrong direction to take. He  stated that as revolutionary as                                                                    
the bill was being presented to  be, he believed it was "the                                                                    
same  animal with  a different  haircut" in  many areas.  He                                                                    
acknowledged that  some of the changes  were significant. He                                                                    
was  still unclear  on the  proposal  to reduce  the cap  to                                                                    
three  per   9,000.  He  wondered   if  there  could   be  a                                                                    
distillery, brewery, and winery per  9,000. He stated it was                                                                    
his understanding.                                                                                                              
Representative  Wool stated  that reducing  the number  from                                                                    
12,000 to  9,000 increased the  ability for other  people to                                                                    
get into  the business  under the  current law.  He believed                                                                    
the  change was  positive. He  believed the  change resisted                                                                    
the  trend   towards  overvaluing   or  adding   equity.  He                                                                    
predicted the  same problem would  occur in the  future when                                                                    
the licenses  became extremely  valuable and  someone wanted                                                                    
to do another  kind of similar business  - those individuals                                                                    
would be  in the same  situation as the BDLs.  The amendment                                                                    
would reduce  the number  from 12,000  to 9,000.  He pointed                                                                    
out  that  the 12,000  limit  had  only  been in  place  for                                                                    
approximately one month.                                                                                                        
9:19:38 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative Sullivan-Leonard  opposed the  amendment. She                                                                    
shared  that her  district was  currently ripe  for commerce                                                                    
and  there  were  many  young people  who  found  opening  a                                                                    
brewery to  be enticing.  She did not  want to  hinder young                                                                    
entrepreneurials  trying to  start  a business  and make  it                                                                    
work in  a small community.  The population of  her district                                                                    
was  currently slightly  over 10,000.  She  stated that  the                                                                    
12,000 threshold  was important  to enable new  breweries to                                                                    
be established  in Wasilla. She highlighted  the substantial                                                                    
work that  had gone into  the bill over  a period of  six to                                                                    
eight years.  She wanted to  see how things would  work over                                                                    
the  coming year  to determine  whether changes  were needed                                                                    
the following  year. She did  not want to make  it difficult                                                                    
for people wanting to invest.                                                                                                   
Representative Knopp  supported the amendment. He  was still                                                                    
trying  to  wrap  his  head   around  the  entire  bill.  He                                                                    
understood  there  could  be multiple  breweries,  but  they                                                                    
could not have a tasting  room. He believed the tasting room                                                                    
concept went away under the  bill and breweries would have a                                                                    
retail license. His  concern was about the  possibility of a                                                                    
brewery  with  a tasting  room  and  a couple  of  breweries                                                                    
without  a tasting  room or  retail license.  He highlighted                                                                    
that when  breweries started, one  of the reasons  for being                                                                    
allowed to sell samples was  the immediate need for cashflow                                                                    
and revenue.  He believed any  new breweries would  have the                                                                    
same  need   for  cashflow  and   revenue  to   sustain  the                                                                    
manufacturing. He  could see  a need  for breweries  to have                                                                    
tasting rooms  or a  retail license  to sell  samples sooner                                                                    
rather  than  later.   He  did  not  want   to  neglect  the                                                                    
opportunity  for  businesses  to  do so.  He  supported  the                                                                    
reduction back to the previous number.                                                                                          
9:22:29 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative   LeBon    supported   the    amendment.   He                                                                    
characterized  the  amendment  as a  compromise  within  the                                                                    
compromise. He  considered that  perhaps a  3,000 population                                                                    
cap was too  low, and a 12,000 cap was  too high. He thought                                                                    
the  12,000  cap  would  discourage  competition,  the  free                                                                    
marketplace, and a new brewery  from opening. He stated that                                                                    
a 9,000  cap was a  softening of  the limit and  would allow                                                                    
for more opportunity  for a new brewery  to establish itself                                                                    
in  the   marketplace.  He   recognized  that   the  capital                                                                    
investment  to  open  a brewery  or  something  similar  was                                                                    
considerable. He  pointed out there  was a barrier  to entry                                                                    
beyond a population  cap. He reiterated his  support for the                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz appreciated the  ideas and sound arguments,                                                                    
but he opposed the  amendment. He communicated his intention                                                                    
to  oppose all  of  the  amendments. He  had  spoken to  BDL                                                                    
owners, the  president of CHARR [Cabaret,  Hotel, Restaurant                                                                    
and  Retailers Association]  in  his  district, and  brewery                                                                    
owners. He  relayed that the consistent  message he received                                                                    
was support for  the passage of the bill  during the current                                                                    
session. Additionally,  the stakeholders  felt that  any new                                                                    
changes made  to the bill  could "upset the apple  cart." He                                                                    
referenced Representative Sullivan-Leonard's  point that the                                                                    
process leading  to the  current bill  had been  lengthy. He                                                                    
reported that  stakeholders had been concerned  the previous                                                                    
day when  they had heard  the bill  may not pass  during the                                                                    
current session. He thought amending  the bill could mean it                                                                    
would get lost in the legislative process.                                                                                      
9:25:09 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson  was  told that  BDL  holders  saw                                                                    
advantage in the proposed change  because they knew what the                                                                    
lay of the  land would look like in the  out years (i.e. who                                                                    
the  other  players  were).  He   asked  for  the  amendment                                                                    
sponsor's impression.                                                                                                           
Representative Wool did  not know that he had  an answer for                                                                    
the question.  He had  heard from  the brewers,  the Brewers                                                                    
Guild,  and brewers'  lobbyists who  at one  point had  said                                                                    
they   liked  the   change.  He   referenced  Representative                                                                    
Sullivan-Leonard's comments that she  did not want to change                                                                    
the cap.  He clarified  that the  amendment to  increase the                                                                    
cap  [to 12,000]  had  happened four  weeks  earlier in  the                                                                    
Senate   Finance   Committee.   He   understood   the   time                                                                    
consideration  given  that  it  may  be  the  last  day  the                                                                    
legislature met  for some time.  He thought the  current law                                                                    
may have a cap of 9,000,  but he was uncertain. The existing                                                                    
law  allowed  one license  per  3,000  [people] per  license                                                                    
type. He explained that the  cap of 12,000 meant there could                                                                    
be one license for every  12,000 people. He reasoned that if                                                                    
Wasilla  had  a population  of  20,000,  it could  have  one                                                                    
brewery  under the  cap. However,  if  the cap  was one  per                                                                    
9,000, Wasilla could have two  breweries. He believed it was                                                                    
the existing system.                                                                                                            
Representative Wool thought one  could argue that increasing                                                                    
the number  of breweries in  a community would  increase the                                                                    
competition  for breweries.  He  thought  brewers wanted  to                                                                    
increase the  cap, so there  were fewer breweries  to choose                                                                    
from. He  thought it was a  win for the brewers  to increase                                                                    
the cap  to [one license  per] 12,000. However,  he believed                                                                    
it was  a loss for  competition. He highlighted  that equity                                                                    
in licenses was the hole the  state needed to dig itself out                                                                    
of.  He did  not  know whether  BDL  holders believed  there                                                                    
would be less competition;  however, the brewers did believe                                                                    
there  would  be  less   competition.  The  amendment  would                                                                    
reverse the  change made  four weeks  earlier in  the Senate                                                                    
Finance Committee.                                                                                                              
9:28:35 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Johnston  remarked that  while  the  bill was  not                                                                    
perfect  and could  be amended,  she had  received the  same                                                                    
input from constituents as Vice-Chair  Ortiz had voiced. Her                                                                    
constituents  wanted support  for the  current bill  version                                                                    
without additional amendments. She  agreed with some changes                                                                    
and  would  like  to  see  the issue  of  equity  in  liquor                                                                    
licensing; however, she agreed  with the bill sponsor's past                                                                    
statement that  it was  the system  they were  working with.                                                                    
She looked  forward to future  discussions on the  topic and                                                                    
noted it was not currently the time for those discussions.                                                                      
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                      
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Wool, Knopp, LeBon                                                                                                    
OPPOSED: Tilton, Carpenter, Merrick, Ortiz, Sullivan-                                                                           
Leonard, Josephson, Johnston                                                                                                    
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 3 FAILED (3/7).                                                                                   
Representative Wool WITHDREW Amendment 5 31-LS00004\E.A.11                                                                      
(Radford, 3/23/20) (copy on file).                                                                                              
9:31:07 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Wool    MOVED   to   ADOPT    Amendment   6                                                                    
31-LS00004\E.A.9 (Radford, 3/23/20) (copy on file):                                                                             
     Page 22, line 21:                                                                                                          
     Delete "10:00 p.m."                                                                                                        
     Insert "9:00 p.m."                                                                                                         
     Page 23, line 30:                                                                                                          
     Delete "10:00 p.m."                                                                                                        
     Insert "9:00 p.m."                                                                                                         
     Page 25, line 5:                                                                                                           
     Delete "10:00 p.m."                                                                                                        
     Insert "9:00 p.m."                                                                                                         
     Page 50, line 20:                                                                                                          
     Delete "10:00 p.m."                                                                                                        
     Insert "9:00 p.m."                                                                                                         
     Page 87, line 13:                                                                                                          
     Delete "10:00 p.m."                                                                                                        
     Insert "9:00 p.m."                                                                                                         
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED.                                                                                                      
Representative Wool  reviewed the amendment. He  felt it was                                                                    
his  job as  a legislator  to try  to amend  legislation. He                                                                    
shared that  he received  calls on both  sides of  the issue                                                                    
and had his  own feelings, which he tried  to represent once                                                                    
in a while as well.  The amendment would change the proposed                                                                    
new closing time  for tasting rooms from 10:00  p.m. to 9:00                                                                    
p.m.  He detailed  that  tasting rooms  had  closed at  8:00                                                                    
p.m.,  beginning  around 2008  for  breweries  and 2014  for                                                                    
distilleries. He had  not noticed any problem  with how they                                                                    
were working, and he remarked  that customers appeared to be                                                                    
flocking to the  businesses. He shared that he  was a patron                                                                    
of the businesses  and believed they served  a good purpose.                                                                    
He had not heard from  patrons that the businesses needed to                                                                    
stay  open a  couple  of hours  longer.  He understood  that                                                                    
owners wanted to stay open  longer because it would bring in                                                                    
more revenue.                                                                                                                   
Representative Wool referred to a  bill that had allowed the                                                                    
sale of samples in  manufacturing tasting rooms. He detailed                                                                    
that  in 2006,  Craig  Johnson, a  legislative staffer  (who                                                                    
later  served  as  a  legislator  to  former  Senator  Lesil                                                                    
McGuire) stated  in a Labor and  Commerce Committee meeting,                                                                    
"while there  have been concerns regarding  breweries acting                                                                    
as taverns,  this legislation includes restrictions  such as                                                                    
limited  onsite sales,  restricted hours  of operation,  and                                                                    
well defined environment." He cited  testimony from the same                                                                    
meeting by  Robert McCormick from the  Glacier Brewhouse [in                                                                    
Anchorage] and  the Brewers Guild  of Alaska who  said, "the                                                                    
concern is that the law  may be misinterpreted and breweries                                                                    
may turn into taverns;  however, with restrictions in place,                                                                    
this  will not  happen."  Another testifier,  Glen Brady  of                                                                    
Silver  Gulch Brewing  and chair  of Alaska  CHARR, who  was                                                                    
currently a  member of the Alcoholic  Beverage Control Board                                                                    
stated, "to avoid  the creation of taverns,  would not allow                                                                    
the sale of product after 8:00 p.m."                                                                                            
Representative Wool cited  testimony by Representative Chris                                                                    
Tuck in  2014 with  relation to a  distillery bill  that had                                                                    
passed,    allowing    distilleries   to    sell    samples.                                                                    
Representative  Tuck   stated,  "similar  to   wineries  and                                                                    
breweries, HB 309 would prevent  distilleries from acting as                                                                    
a de  facto bar by  prohibiting bar-like amenities,  such as                                                                    
limited hours of operation." He  stated that the whole thing                                                                    
had been started with limits,  specifying that tasting rooms                                                                    
would not  be taverns or bars  and they would close  at 8:00                                                                    
p.m.  Additionally,  tasting  rooms   could  not  have  live                                                                    
entertainment  and   were  required  to  limit   the  amount                                                                    
individuals were allowed to consume.  He stressed that SB 52                                                                    
blew the requirements  open by changing the  closing time to                                                                    
10:00 p.m.  and allowing live entertainment.  He thought the                                                                    
businesses should  just be  called bars  and taverns  if the                                                                    
initial rules were  not followed. He was  inclined to adhere                                                                    
to the original  intent. He thought crossing  the line would                                                                    
make it easier to continue  adjusting the closing time later                                                                    
and later.  He thought it  could lead to  more entertainment                                                                    
being hosted  in the locations.  He pointed out  that public                                                                    
safety  and  public  health  workers  liked  the  businesses                                                                    
because  the number  of drinks  a person  could consume  was                                                                    
limited.  He highlighted  that a  10:00  p.m. closure  would                                                                    
allow  individuals to  visit multiple  places and  gave more                                                                    
time to increase alcohol consumption.                                                                                           
Representative  Wool  summarized  that the  current  closure                                                                    
time  [for distilleries  and breweries]  was 8:00  p.m., the                                                                    
same as  it had  been since inception.  The bill  proposed a                                                                    
closure  time of  10:00 p.m.  Amendment 6  would change  the                                                                    
time  to  9:00  p.m.  He thought  perhaps  distilleries  and                                                                    
breweries  may  determine that  they  did  not want  patrons                                                                    
after  9:00 p.m.  because  they may  be  too inebriated.  He                                                                    
thought 9:00  p.m. had been  considered earlier in  the bill                                                                    
deliberations, but  he believed  breweries had  pushed back.                                                                    
He remarked that breweries and  CHARR had a lobbyist and had                                                                    
some muscle.   He thought  the amendment represented  a good                                                                    
9:35:30 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative LeBon  supported the amendment. He  had hoped                                                                    
the population  limit would  be decreased  to 9,000  and the                                                                    
closing hours  would be dropped  to 9:00 p.m. He  noted that                                                                    
the first had failed and he hoped the second passed.                                                                            
Representative   Knopp  expressed   uncertainty  about   the                                                                    
amendment. He noted  he did not have clarity  on all aspects                                                                    
of  the bill.  He asked  if the  existing three-drink  limit                                                                    
went away when  tasting rooms were no longer  referred to as                                                                    
tasting rooms and they were  replaced by retail licenses. He                                                                    
referenced a  concern that had  arisen during  discussion on                                                                    
music  festivals.  There  had  been  feedback  that  it  was                                                                    
unrealistic  to think  a business  hosting a  music festival                                                                    
would  have  a  three-drink   limit.  His  support  for  the                                                                    
amendment would  depend on  the answer  to the  question. He                                                                    
asked if the three-drink limit would still exist.                                                                               
SENATOR PETER  MICCICHE, SPONSOR,  answered that  the three-                                                                    
drink limit was  not affected by the  amendment. He reminded                                                                    
the committee that there was  currently a soft close of 8:00                                                                    
p.m., which meant  the business had to  stop serving alcohol                                                                    
at  that time;  however,  patrons were  allowed  to stay  to                                                                    
finish their drinks and food  past that time. The bill would                                                                    
implement a  10:00 p.m.  hard close, which  was part  of the                                                                    
deal resulting in support letters  from various entities. He                                                                    
explained that  a hard  close meant that  patrons had  to be                                                                    
out by 10:00 p.m. The bill  would add time to the open hours                                                                    
but did not change what could be served.                                                                                        
Representative Knopp  asked for  verification that  the same                                                                    
hard  close  and  three-drink limit  would  apply  to  music                                                                    
festivals and  other entertainment  events at  breweries and                                                                    
Senator Micciche  agreed. He detailed that  businesses would                                                                    
be allowed  to remain  open until  10:00 p.m.  Patrons would                                                                    
have to be out no later than 10:00 p.m.                                                                                         
9:38:17 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Wool provided  wrap  up on  Amendment 6.  He                                                                    
stated  that no  one was  trying to  change the  drink limit                                                                    
yet.  He  speculated that  someone  would  try to  make  the                                                                    
change in the future, which  would also include a 12:00 a.m.                                                                    
closing time and weekly music  events. He shared that he had                                                                    
been in  the bar business 25  years and knew all  about hard                                                                    
and soft close times. He  highlighted changes in bar closing                                                                    
times in  Fairbanks over the  years. He pointed out  that it                                                                    
was  possible to  buy  a  drink five  minutes  prior to  bar                                                                    
close. He  noted that  with a  hard close  at 10:00  p.m., a                                                                    
person could  purchase a beer  at 9:45  p.m. and be  out the                                                                    
door 15  minutes later. Whereas,  with a soft close,  it was                                                                    
possible for a person to  purchase a beer five minutes prior                                                                    
to  close and  sip it  for  30 minutes.  He did  not have  a                                                                    
problem  with  the  latter scenario.  He  thought  all  bars                                                                    
should  have a  wind-down  time, which  would allow  patrons                                                                    
time to get a cab. He  considered the question of live music                                                                    
and reported  that some of  the venues  he had been  to held                                                                    
hundreds  of   people.  He  planned   to  offer   a  related                                                                    
Representative  Wool  summarized  that the  amendment  would                                                                    
implement  a  9:00 p.m.  close  and  the drink  limit  would                                                                    
remain the  same. He  stated that a  10:00 p.m.  close could                                                                    
take  away  time   a  person  may  have   spent  in  another                                                                    
establishment. He  thought 9:00 p.m. was  a fair compromise.                                                                    
He  thought  patrons supported  the  earlier  close and  the                                                                    
early   family  atmosphere.   He  understood   that  patrons                                                                    
supporting the  earlier close could  leave when  they chose,                                                                    
but he thought the establishments  would take on a different                                                                    
tenure under  the later  close time.  He highlighted  that a                                                                    
close time of 9:00 p.m. still reflected expanded hours.                                                                         
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                      
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Wool, LeBon                                                                                                           
OPPOSED: Carpenter, Josephson, Knopp, Merrick, Ortiz,                                                                           
Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Johnston                                                                                              
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 6 FAILED (2/8).                                                                                   
9:41:43 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Wool   MOVED    to   ADOPT   Amendment   7,                                                                    
31-LS0004\E.A.18 (Radford, 3/24/20) (copy on file):                                                                             
     Page 11, line 27:                                                                                                          
     Delete "AS 04.09.610,"                                                                                                     
     Insert "AS 04.09.530, 04.09.610,"                                                                                          
     Page 31, line 24:                                                                                                          
     Delete "04.09.520"                                                                                                         
     Insert "04.09.530"                                                                                                         
     Page 32, line 1:                                                                                                           
     Delete "04.09.520"                                                                                                         
     Insert "04.09.530"                                                                                                         
     Page 44, following line 24:                                                                                                
     Insert a new section to read:                                                                                              
     "Sec.   04.09.530.   Beverage  dispensary   repackaging                                                                    
     endorsement.  (a)  A  beverage  dispensary  repackaging                                                                    
     endorsement  authorizes   the  holder  of   a  beverage                                                                    
     dispensary  license to  offer  alcoholic beverages  for                                                                    
     sale for  consumption off the licensed  premises and to                                                                    
     subdivide  and   sell  alcoholic  beverages   from  the                                                                    
     original packages to  smaller containers with federally                                                                    
     compliant   labels   showing   the   standard   federal                                                                    
     government warnings and the product name.                                                                                  
          (b)  The biennial  fee for  a beverage  dispensary                                                                    
          repackaging endorsement is $200.                                                                                      
          (c)   A  beverage   dispensary  licensee   with  a                                                                    
          beverage dispensary repackaging endorsement                                                                           
               (1)  may  repackage  alcoholic beverages  for                                                                    
               sale   on    the   licensed    premises   for                                                                    
               consumption  off  the  licensed  premises  by                                                                    
               opening the original  package for the purpose                                                                    
               of  subdividing  the  contents  into  smaller                                                                    
               (2)  is authorized  to sell,  each  day to  a                                                                    
               person   on   the   licensed   premises   for                                                                    
               consumption  off the  licensed premises,  not                                                                    
             more than 5.167 gallons of beer;                                                                                   
               (3)  may  pem1it  an  agent  or  employee  to                                                                    
               repackage  alcoholic beverages,  but may  not                                                                    
               permit a  customer or  another person  who is                                                                    
               not an  agent or employee of  the licensee to                                                                    
               repackage alcoholic beverages                                                                                    
               (4)   is   authorized   to   sell   alcoholic                                                                    
               beverages  for consumption  off the  licensed                                                                    
               premises  during  the  time  allowable  under                                                                    
               local ordinance.                                                                                                 
          (d) The  holder of  a beverage  dispensary license                                                                    
          who  repackages  alcoholic  beverages  without  an                                                                    
          endorsement   under  this   section  commits   the                                                                    
          offense   of    unendorsed   beverage   dispensary                                                                    
          (e)   The   holder   of  a   beverage   dispensary                                                                    
          repackaging endorsement  who fails to  comply with                                                                    
          the  requirements  of  this  section  commits  the                                                                    
          offense   of   beverage   dispensary   repackaging                                                                    
          endorsement noncompliance.                                                                                            
          (f)  Unendorsed  beverage  dispensary  repackaging                                                                    
          is  a violation  and is  punishable by  a fine  of                                                                    
          (g)  Beverage  dispensary repackaging  endorsement                                                                    
          noncompliance is a violation."                                                                                        
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.                                                                                              
Representative Wool  reviewed the  amendment. He  noted that                                                                    
the  amendment  topic was  not  addressed  in Title  IV  and                                                                    
therefore, the amendment did not  constitute a deletion. The                                                                    
amendment would  allow the numerous  BDL's to  repackage and                                                                    
sell off  premises. He explained  that BDL's  were currently                                                                    
closed;  however, all  of the  other alcohol  establishments                                                                    
open  to the  public could  sell alcohol.  He detailed  that                                                                    
liquor stores could sell alcohol  and were also able to sell                                                                    
growlers.  Additionally, brewery  tasting  rooms could  sell                                                                    
growlers.  It  was  not  currently   possible  to  drink  on                                                                    
premise,  but they  could be  taken  offsite. The  amendment                                                                    
would allow BDLs to do the  same. He stated that the tasting                                                                    
rooms  were encroaching  on  some of  the  things BDLs  were                                                                    
allowed to  do, such  as live  entertainment. He  noted that                                                                    
tasting  rooms had  not yet  had  the ability  to host  live                                                                    
music, but  they wanted that  to change. He  explained there                                                                    
were few things  BDLs could do that  manufacturers could not                                                                    
do -  entertainment was one  of those things.  He reiterated                                                                    
that the  amendment would enable  BDLs to sell  growlers for                                                                    
consumption   off   premise,   which  was   something   that                                                                    
manufacturers and  other package stores could  do. He stated                                                                    
that during  the current economic  time, any  revenue stream                                                                    
would be positive.                                                                                                              
Representative LeBon  spoke in support of  the amendment. He                                                                    
stated it would allow for  a customer of a BDL establishment                                                                    
to make a one-stop shop -  to purchase food and a growler to                                                                    
go.  He detailed  that the  amendment would  expand a  BDL's                                                                    
business  opportunity at  a time  with limited  opportunity,                                                                    
given that doors were currently locked.                                                                                         
Vice-Chair  Ortiz  requested  to  ask  the  bill  sponsor  a                                                                    
9:44:42 AM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the  issue in Amendment 7 had been                                                                    
addressed in  any way as  a part  of the "grand  bargain" on                                                                    
the bill.                                                                                                                       
Senator  Micciche  replied  that  the  topic  had  not  been                                                                    
discussed in  eight years of  discussions, which was  one of                                                                    
the  things  he   feared  about  changes  on   the  fly.  He                                                                    
recognized that  the issue  may be  worthy of  discussion in                                                                    
the future.  He elaborated  that it  was not  something that                                                                    
anyone  had  asked  for.  He  highlighted  that  he  stopped                                                                    
counting at  13,000 hours  - many  meetings had  taken place                                                                    
over  the past  interim since  the  last time  the bill  had                                                                    
stalled. He  reiterated that the  subject had never  come up                                                                    
during that time.                                                                                                               
Representative LeBon remarked  that he had heard  from a BDL                                                                    
holder  in   Fairbanks  that   they  would   appreciate  the                                                                    
flexibility. He  thought that up  until recently,  the sense                                                                    
that a  business would be  closed for an extended  period of                                                                    
time had never entered into the  mind of a restaurant or bar                                                                    
operator.  He stressed  that businesses  were closed,  and a                                                                    
reopening  date was  uncertain. He  stated it  had become  a                                                                    
sense of  urgency. He  acknowledged that  the issue  had not                                                                    
been discussed in the past; however, times had changed.                                                                         
Senator Micciche  responded that  the effective date  of the                                                                    
bill  did not  help the  situation in  the current  year. He                                                                    
agreed it was  worthy of discussion in the  future. He noted                                                                    
there  would  be  some  cleanup   on  the  bill  needed  the                                                                    
following year  and it could  be discussed at that  time. He                                                                    
suggested  that  public safety  could  be  brought into  the                                                                    
conversation as well.                                                                                                           
9:47:16 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative Josephson  relayed that he had  driven by the                                                                    
Alaskan Brewery  warehouse near Costco  in Juneau.  He asked                                                                    
if  the amendment  would allow  a person  to take  a growler                                                                    
into a bar in downtown Juneau to have it refilled.                                                                              
Representative  Wool answered  affirmatively. He  had spoken                                                                    
to CHARR and  brewers about the issue. He  was surprised the                                                                    
issue  had not  come  up during  past  conversations on  the                                                                    
bill. He  relayed that  he had thought  about the  issue for                                                                    
some time. He  shared that when he had been  in the business                                                                    
in the past,  people would come in and ask  if he could fill                                                                    
a growler, but it had not  been allowed. He reported that it                                                                    
was  possible  to  go  to  the  Moose's  Tooth  pizzeria  in                                                                    
Anchorage  to  buy  a  growler  to go.  He  noted  that  the                                                                    
restaurant did not brew beer,  but it had a brewpub license.                                                                    
He  thought it  was a  great idea.  He had  sold pizza  at a                                                                    
restaurant in  the past, but  he could not sell  any alcohol                                                                    
to go.  He highlighted that  it was not  a new concept  - it                                                                    
was allowed  many places. He  shared that CHARR  and brewers                                                                    
had  told him  they were  amenable to  the change.  He would                                                                    
prefer to deal with the  issue at present instead of opening                                                                    
a can  of worms  the following  year. He  had not  heard any                                                                    
opposition to the idea. He stated  it was some "give" to the                                                                    
BDL  owners to  participate  in an  activity that  seemingly                                                                    
everyone else could do.                                                                                                         
Representative Carpenter MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                              
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Josephson, Knopp, LeBon, Ortiz, Wool                                                                                  
OPPOSED:   Carpenter,  Merrick,   Sullivan-Leonard,  Tilton,                                                                    
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 7 FAILED (5/5).                                                                                   
9:50:16 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wool  MOVED to  ADOPT Conceptual  Amendment 1                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
     Prohibits breweries, distilleries, and wineries in                                                                         
     possession of a retail endorsement from providing free                                                                     
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED.                                                                                                      
Representative  Wool  reviewed   the  amendment  that  would                                                                    
remove  free samples  at a  manufacturing tasting  room that                                                                    
sold  samples. He  noted that  it  could be  argued that  36                                                                    
ounces   of  beer   was  not   a  sample.   He  shared   his                                                                    
understanding  that sample  sizes  in  tasting rooms  needed                                                                    
some clarification.  He believed  the free sample  sizes for                                                                    
liquor stores  at 12 ounces of  beer, 6 ounces of  wine, and                                                                    
1.5  ounces of  liquor  were the  same  amounts allowed  for                                                                    
tasting rooms. He  questioned why a business  needed to give                                                                    
alcohol  away for  free if  it  had an  endorsement to  sell                                                                    
alcohol.  For example,  he thought  that  breweries had  the                                                                    
ability to sell  36 ounces of beer and could  legally give a                                                                    
patron another 12  ounces "for the road." He did  not see it                                                                    
as necessary.  He stated that  breweries had the  ability to                                                                    
tell a customer  if they bought three beers,  they could get                                                                    
a fourth  for free. He stated  that bars could not  give out                                                                    
12 ounces of  beer or anything for free.  He considered that                                                                    
a small sip  of something for a taste was  one thing, but he                                                                    
thought  the allowable  sample  size in  the  bill was  much                                                                    
larger.  He disagreed  with the  ability for  a business  to                                                                    
sell alcohol and have the ability to give it away for free.                                                                     
9:52:50 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Micciche clarified  that the  law stated  the total                                                                    
allowable  consumption was  36  ounces. He  detailed that  a                                                                    
sample was included  in the 36 ounces. A  business could not                                                                    
give a customer a drink to  go or an amount above 36 ounces.                                                                    
He stated  that the  bill provided  significant enforcement.                                                                    
He  explained  that  if a  compliance  officer  witnessed  a                                                                    
business giving  out three beers and  an additional tasting,                                                                    
the business would be out of compliance and would be cited.                                                                     
Co-Chair Johnston asked the sponsor  and his staff to remain                                                                    
at the testifier table.                                                                                                         
Representative Josephson  asked if  the same limit  on total                                                                    
consumption applied to wineries and distilleries.                                                                               
Senator  Micciche replied  that  he was  not  certain a  BDL                                                                    
would have a scale to  measure precise amounts, but the hard                                                                    
cap   applied  to   the  sample   amount  at   distilleries,                                                                    
breweries, and wineries.                                                                                                        
Representative Wool  was familiar  with the  cap and  he was                                                                    
glad to  hear the  same cap applied  whether a  beverage was                                                                    
for sale  or free. He asked  what the sample size  limit was                                                                    
for a retail tasting room.                                                                                                      
Senator Micciche  answered there  was not a  specific sample                                                                    
size.  The  cap  was  36  ounces. He  explained  that  if  a                                                                    
compliance officer  witnessed a business give  out 39 ounces                                                                    
including a sample, the business would be breaking the law.                                                                     
Representative Wool  knew the sample size  for liquor stores                                                                    
was established. He had thought  there was a sample size for                                                                    
tasting  rooms. He  had  asked a  manufacturer  in the  past                                                                    
couple of  years what they would  be willing to give  up. He                                                                    
recalled that  the manufacturer  had told  him they  did not                                                                    
really need  the ability to  give free samples  because they                                                                    
were  selling product.  He shared  that he  owned a  bar and                                                                    
could not give out free  drinks. He wondered why they should                                                                    
not take  the ability to  give out  free drinks away  if the                                                                    
tasting  rooms were  also selling  drinks.  He wondered  why                                                                    
tasting rooms  were allowed to  do both. He reasoned  that a                                                                    
tasting room could  tell patrons if they  bought two drinks,                                                                    
they  could get  a  third  for free.  He  stressed that  the                                                                    
option was not available to bars.                                                                                               
9:56:33 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson   asked  if  the  intent   of  the                                                                    
amendment was  to protect  the BDL  economic interest  or to                                                                    
avoid  over  intoxication. He  thought  there  may be  other                                                                    
reasons.  He referenced  the  disparity  highlighted by  the                                                                    
amendment  sponsor  that  BDLs  were  not  allowed  to  give                                                                    
samples. He asked if those were the issues at play.                                                                             
Representative Wool answered that  because the limit was the                                                                    
limit it  would not affect  intoxication levels. He  did not                                                                    
see any  enforcement officers in  any of the  businesses. He                                                                    
believed there was  one officer in Fairbanks,  who had their                                                                    
hands full.  He noted the  issue was about equity  and about                                                                    
cleanup. He  thought the free  samples had  been established                                                                    
prior to the ability to do  retail sales. He noted that many                                                                    
manufacturers  provided   samples.  For   example,  Guinness                                                                    
samples where  given out on  their factory tours.  He stated                                                                    
that legally  businesses could offer a  promotion by telling                                                                    
customers they could  get a third drink free  if they bought                                                                    
two between  certain hours.  He emphasized  that he  was not                                                                    
claiming a  business would offer  a promotion, but  they had                                                                    
the ability  to legally do so.  He did not see  the need. He                                                                    
noted that  a restaurant  could not give  out free  wine. He                                                                    
stressed that  public safety workers were  adamant about the                                                                    
fact  that  it was  not  legal  to  give out  free  alcohol.                                                                    
However, tasting  rooms were able  to do so. He  thought the                                                                    
law should be consistent across license types.                                                                                  
9:58:33 AM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                      
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: LeBon, Wool                                                                                                           
OPPOSED:   Josephson,  Knopp,   Merrick,  Ortiz,   Sullivan-                                                                    
Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter, Johnston                                                                                            
The MOTION to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 FAILED (2/8).                                                                        
9:59:18 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wool  MOVED to  ADOPT Conceptual  Amendment 2                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
     Requires breweries,  distilleries, and wineries  with a                                                                    
     tasting  room to  establish  a  standardized system  of                                                                    
     tracking  a customer's  consumption of  product.   This                                                                    
     system must be reported to  and approved by the Alcohol                                                                    
     Beverage Control  Board or the Board  may develop their                                                                    
     own methodology.                                                                                                           
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.                                                                                              
Representative  Wool reviewed  the amendment.  The amendment                                                                    
would establish  a system to track  a customer's consumption                                                                    
of  product.  He had  been  to  many  places and  had  heard                                                                    
anecdotally that  it was  difficult to  track the  number of                                                                    
drinks  customers consumed  when  there was  a  room of  200                                                                    
people with  three people  pouring beer.  He shared  that he                                                                    
had been places  that stamped patrons' hands  for each drink                                                                    
consumed, while  other places did  not. He shared  that some                                                                    
places that used  to stamp hands had stopped.  He noted that                                                                    
some places  gave patrons a  card to carry, but  cards could                                                                    
be  moved  around.  He  was  not  claiming  people  had  bad                                                                    
intentions, but he had heard  stories that the limit was not                                                                    
always adhered to.                                                                                                              
Representative Wool asked how  businesses tracked the number                                                                    
of drinks its patrons consumed  during a concert with 300 to                                                                    
500 attendees. He  pointed out that the  businesses were now                                                                    
open from 9:00  a.m. to 10:00 p.m. He  believed there should                                                                    
be  a standardized  system. The  amendment  would require  a                                                                    
business to develop and report  a standardized system to the                                                                    
Alcohol Beverage Control Board (ABC  Board) or the ABC Board                                                                    
could  develop a  uniform methodology.  He reasoned  a small                                                                    
room holding  20 people was one  thing, but he did  not know                                                                    
how places that  could hold hundreds of  people with outdoor                                                                    
areas were  able to adhere to  the drink limit. He  had been                                                                    
asked by  a server  in the  past whether  he had  consumed a                                                                    
drink. He  thought the servers  should know. He  reasoned it                                                                    
was  sometimes  good  to have  rules.  The  amendment  would                                                                    
require establishing a system to track drink limits.                                                                            
Representative Knopp  could support the amendment  if it was                                                                    
limited  to  the  music  festivals  and  places  with  large                                                                    
numbers of  people, but he did  not support it on  a smaller                                                                    
everyday business  scale. He  thought the  amendment sponsor                                                                    
had  a valid  point  about the  difficulty  of tracking  the                                                                    
number  of drinks  a customer  had consumed  during a  large                                                                    
10:02:19 AM                                                                                                                   
Representative  Josephson  addressed  the bill  sponsor  and                                                                    
asked  why the  requirement  would be  objectionable to  the                                                                    
brewing industry, for example.                                                                                                  
Senator  Micciche  answered  that  he was  not  certain  the                                                                    
requirement  would be  objectionable after  some discussion.                                                                    
He  shared that  his office  had taken  the bill  around the                                                                    
building several  times and  the bill  had been  reviewed by                                                                    
the House  twice. He stated that  the issue had not  come up                                                                    
previously. He shared there was a  brewery he liked to go to                                                                    
fairly regularly. He  stated that he and his  family did not                                                                    
go to bars. He liked the  Kenai River Brewing Co. because it                                                                    
had a  family setting, it had  never had a police  call, and                                                                    
he had never seen anyone get drunk there.                                                                                       
Senator Micciche reported that  brewery servers were trained                                                                    
the  same  way  bartenders  were trained.  He  believed  the                                                                    
amendment topic  should be discussed the  following year. He                                                                    
thought the  discussion should  extend to  BDLs as  well. He                                                                    
highlighted that BDLs faced  challenges with overserving. He                                                                    
considered  that  perhaps  the  number of  drinks  a  person                                                                    
consumed should  be counted; however,  he believed it  was a                                                                    
longer  discussion.  He  thought  it may  be  worth  talking                                                                    
about, but he  did not want it  to be on the  fly. He stated                                                                    
that  the bill  did not  represent the  end all,  be all  of                                                                    
alcohol laws.  There would continue  to be  discussion about                                                                    
many  things that  may  be improvements  in  the future.  He                                                                    
stated that some places  tracked consumption voluntarily. He                                                                    
did  not believe  it was  a problem  currently. He  reported                                                                    
that he  had seen  no evidence  of a problem  in any  of the                                                                    
breweries he had been to around the state.                                                                                      
10:04:31 AM                                                                                                                   
Representative Josephson  respected the  hard work  that had                                                                    
gone into the legislation; however,  he pointed out that the                                                                    
game was not yet over.                                                                                                          
Representative  Knopp remarked  that  the  bill sponsor  had                                                                    
stated that  Amendments 2 and  7 contained great  ideas, but                                                                    
he was not supportive at the  time because they had not been                                                                    
discussed by  all of  the user  groups. He  highlighted that                                                                    
the  amendments  passed  in Senate  Finance  Committee  were                                                                    
substantial.  He  asked if  those  amendments  had "made  it                                                                    
around the  block" and been  discussed. He pointed  out that                                                                    
those  amendments  were more  substantial  than  any of  the                                                                    
amendments proposed during the  current meeting. He wondered                                                                    
about the  situation with the amendments  passed previously,                                                                    
given the  bill sponsor's  opposition to any  new amendments                                                                    
because they had not been discussed by user groups.                                                                             
Senator Micciche corrected  that he had not  stated that any                                                                    
of the amendments  [offered in the current  meeting] were "a                                                                    
great  idea." He  clarified  that he  had  stated they  were                                                                    
worthy of  discussion and  there may  be something  of value                                                                    
that came  out of  them. He  had stated he  did not  want to                                                                    
make changes on the  fly without involving the professionals                                                                    
including  BDL license  holders,  manufacturers, and  public                                                                    
health and safety. He stated that  the bill was not a lot of                                                                    
work because  something he had personally  done, but because                                                                    
of  all of  the  different players  involved. He  reiterated                                                                    
that some of the ideas  were worthy of discussion. He stated                                                                    
that  the  relatively large  amendment  that  passed in  the                                                                    
Senate  Finance  Committee  was the  agreement  between  the                                                                    
three entities. He  elaborated on his resistance  to see the                                                                    
amendment changed  because it had  been agreed on by  all of                                                                    
the parties.                                                                                                                    
Representative Knopp asked for  verification that all of the                                                                    
amendments passed  in the Senate Finance  Committee had been                                                                    
floated [to  stakeholders] and had  not been crafted  on the                                                                    
Senate  Finance  Committee  floor.   He  remarked  that  the                                                                    
amendments had  not been included  in the original  bill. He                                                                    
asked for detail.                                                                                                               
Senator  Micciche  agreed. He  referred  to  the only  other                                                                    
amendment  added  as  the   "chicken  stock"  amendment.  He                                                                    
reported  that  it  had  been  in an  earlier  bill  and  he                                                                    
believed it had been removed  in the House Finance Committee                                                                    
a couple of  years back. He explained it  had been discussed                                                                    
with all of the user groups  and he had not been opposed. He                                                                    
explained  that all  of the  amendments in  the bill  in the                                                                    
Senate Finance  Committee had gone  through the  process and                                                                    
were agreed on by all of the entities.                                                                                          
10:07:10 AM                                                                                                                   
Representative Wool  provided wrap  up on the  amendment. He                                                                    
stated that  the issue had  come up  in the past.  He shared                                                                    
that  he had  talked about  the concept  of enforcing  drink                                                                    
limits with CHARR  in the past several  years. He referenced                                                                    
the  idea of  putting  drink limits  on  BDLs [mentioned  by                                                                    
Senator Micciche] for public safety  and stated, "I guess we                                                                    
put french-fry limits too." He  thought increasing the hours                                                                    
to 10:00  p.m. would  result in people  with a  higher blood                                                                    
alcohol level  because they could patron  various places. He                                                                    
had been to places with  200 people outside on regular days.                                                                    
He  was not  certain people  had envisioned  large gathering                                                                    
spots when  the concept had  been floated in  the beginning.                                                                    
He thought  that if  a limit existed,  there should  be some                                                                    
way of  tracking it. He understood  that a limit may  not be                                                                    
necessary in  a small  facility with three  tables; however,                                                                    
some facilities were large and could use a system.                                                                              
Representative Carpenter MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                              
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Wool, Josephson,                                                                                                      
OPPOSED:   Merrick,  Sullivan-Leonard,   Tilton,  Carpenter,                                                                    
Knopp, LeBon, Ortiz, Johnston                                                                                                   
The MOTION to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 FAILED (2/8).                                                                        
10:09:37 AM                                                                                                                   
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
10:10:55 AM                                                                                                                   
Representative   Josephson   WITHDREW   Amendment   1,   31-                                                                    
LS00004\E.A.6 (Radford, 3/20/20) (copy on file).                                                                                
Co-Chair  Johnston WITHDREW  Amendment 2,  31-LS00004\E.A.19                                                                    
(Radford,  3/24/20)   and  Amendment   8,  31-LS00004\E.A.20                                                                    
(Radford, 3/24/20)(copy on file).                                                                                               
10:11:22 AM                                                                                                                   
Representative Wool  thanked Co-Chair Johnston  for allowing                                                                    
him to present  amendments on what he believed  was the last                                                                    
day the  legislature would be in  town. He was aware  of the                                                                    
"grand bargain"  that had been  made recently  regarding the                                                                    
changing of the  hours and the live  entertainment, which he                                                                    
found  to be  fundamental in  changing the  definition of  a                                                                    
tasting room  and differentiating it  from a tavern  or bar.                                                                    
He believed  "we've cracked that  egg" and that it  would be                                                                    
forever changed.  He understood  that people liked  going to                                                                    
tasting rooms. He stated he  was partial because he had been                                                                    
a BDL owner  in the past. He shared that  he had friends who                                                                    
owned  package  stores,  distilleries, and  other  BDLs.  He                                                                    
stated  many of  the  businesses would  be  impacted by  the                                                                    
bill.  He  elaborated  that businesses  would  primarily  be                                                                    
impacted by  being closed  [due to  COVID-19] and  unable to                                                                    
sell   anything.   He   stressed   there   would   be   many                                                                    
bankruptcies. He added that many  of the businesses had been                                                                    
teetering anyway.                                                                                                               
Representative   Wool  noted   that  some   businesses  were                                                                    
changing and adapting.  He detailed that some  BDL owners in                                                                    
Fairbanks had opened what looked  like brewery tasting rooms                                                                    
with up  to 40 types of  beer offered. He described  them as                                                                    
clean,  nice,  and bright.  He  continued  that people  were                                                                    
adapting in other ways; younger  people were buying licenses                                                                    
and adding their  own twists, which he thought  was good. He                                                                    
was concerned there would be  numerous bankruptcies and many                                                                    
licenses for sale.                                                                                                              
Representative   Wool  supported   that  the   bill  allowed                                                                    
manufacturers to  purchase BDLs, which would  enable them to                                                                    
sell drinks,  have live entertainment, and  stay open later.                                                                    
He thought there would be numerous  BDLs for sale at a cheap                                                                    
cost. He stressed that the  bill also gave manufacturers the                                                                    
ability to do many  of the aforementioned activities without                                                                    
buying  a  license.  He   wished  that  manufacturers  would                                                                    
purchase BDL licenses if they  wanted to stay open later and                                                                    
have music. He  continued that many of the  places sold food                                                                    
and were  likely qualified  in their sales  ratios to  get a                                                                    
restaurant  eating  place  license.   He  pointed  out  that                                                                    
businesses could then sell wine  as well. He knew there were                                                                    
people  who went  to breweries  and liked  wine as  well. He                                                                    
emphasized  that  the  bill   provided  a  disincentive  for                                                                    
manufacturers  to  buy  BDL   licenses  because  it  enabled                                                                    
businesses  to do  the activities  without  one. He  worried                                                                    
about the  industry and restaurant industry.  He stated that                                                                    
restaurants sold beer  and wine because they  made money off                                                                    
of alcohol.  He noted it  was the reason everyone  wanted to                                                                    
sell  alcohol including  fairs, bowling  alleys, ski  areas,                                                                    
nonprofits,  races, and  other. He  elaborated that  selling                                                                    
alcohol was fairly easy and it did not spoil.                                                                                   
Representative Wool wanted to  see more restaurants have the                                                                    
ability  to  sell  beer  and  wine.  He  did  not  like  the                                                                    
population limits  on restaurant  eating place  licenses. He                                                                    
thought  it would  add  equity in  the  wrong direction.  He                                                                    
believed  the   bill  contained  numerous   positive  things                                                                    
including   cleanup  and   technical  fixes   pertaining  to                                                                    
registration and  licensing. However, he  believed expanding                                                                    
the  hours of  operation  from the  original  intent of  the                                                                    
legislation    and   allowing    live   entertainment    for                                                                    
manufacturers, essentially put them  in the same category as                                                                    
taverns  and  bars, which  past  legislators  had worked  to                                                                    
10:15:12 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair Johnston asked if there  were any objections to the                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Ortiz  MOVED  to  REPORT  CSSB  52(FIN)  out  of                                                                    
committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal notes. There  being NO OBJECTION, it was                                                                    
so ordered.                                                                                                                     
CSSB 52(FIN)  was REPORTED out  of committee with  three "do                                                                    
pass"    recommendations,     five    "no    recommendation"                                                                    
recommendations,  and one  "amend"  recommendation and  with                                                                    
two previously published fiscal  impact notes: FN6 (CED) and                                                                    
FN8 (AJS); one previously  published indeterminate note: FN7                                                                    
(REV);  and   one  previously   published  zero   note:  FN9                                                                    
10:16:20 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair  Johnston thanked  committee staff  for their  work                                                                    
during the  session. She RECESSED  the meeting to a  call of                                                                    
the chair [note: the meeting never reconvened].                                                                                 
10:17:10 AM                                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 52 Public Testimony Rec'd by 032820.pdf HFIN 3/28/2020 9:00:00 AM
SB 52
SB 52 Amendments w Actions 032820.pdf HFIN 3/28/2020 9:00:00 AM
SB 52
SB 52 Testimony Rec'd by 051820.pdf HFIN 3/28/2020 9:00:00 AM
SB 52