04/07/2014 03:24 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB357 | |
| HB254 | |
| HB336 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 2014
3:24 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Andy Josephson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Craig Johnson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 357
"An Act relating to the purchase of alcoholic beverages at a
club and to access by certain persons under 21 years of age to a
club's licensed premises when alcoholic beverages are present."
- MOVED HB 357 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 254
"An Act relating to powers of attorney; relating to the uniform
probate code; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 254(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 336
"An Act relating to sales of alcoholic beverages near a school
or church."
- MOVED HB 336 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 370
"An Act relating to employer drug testing; requiring the Alaska
Workers' Compensation Board to adopt regulations relating to the
prescription of controlled substances to employees; and limiting
the prescription of controlled substances to employees."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 357
SHORT TITLE: ACCESS TO LICENSED PREMISES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SADDLER
02/26/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/26/14 (H) L&C
04/07/14 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 254
SHORT TITLE: POWERS OF ATTORNEY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HUGHES, GRUENBERG
01/21/14 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/17/14
01/21/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/14 (H) L&C, JUD
04/07/14 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 336
SHORT TITLE: ALCOHOL SALES NEAR SCHOOL/CHURCH
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
02/24/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/14 (H) L&C
03/26/14 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/26/14 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/14 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/07/14 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SHIRLEY COTE, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board)
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 357.
GINGER BLAIDELL, Staff
Representative Shelley Hughes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of one of the joint
prime sponsors of HB 254, Representative Shelley Hughes.
REPRESENTATIVE SHELLEY HUGHES
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as joint prime sponsor of HB 254.
KEN HELANDER, Director for Advocacy
AARP Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 254.
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as prime sponsor of HB 336.
SHIRLEY COTE, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board)
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 336.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:24:14 PM
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:24 p.m. Representatives
Josephson, Saddler, Reinbold, Herron, and Olson were present at
the call to order. Representative Chenault arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 357-ACCESS TO LICENSED PREMISES
3:24:36 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 357, "An Act relating to the purchase of
alcoholic beverages at a club and to access by certain persons
under 21 years of age to a club's licensed premises when
alcoholic beverages are present."
3:24:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, speaking as prime sponsor of HB 357,
explained that this bill is an access bill. He explained that
HB 357 does not allow anyone under the 21 to drink alcohol.
Instead, the bill could be considered an access bill, with two
elements. Section 1 relates to service members over the age of
21. This bill makes it easier for them and their spouses to
enjoy companionship in the clubhouses of service and patriotic
clubs, such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) or American
Legion. These are great organizations where veterans and active
duty soldiers can relax with their friends and spouses and enjoy
the special understanding and support from others who have been
there and understand the rigors of military life. The
legislature recognizes these values, and since 2006, active duty
personnel over the age of 21 can enter such clubs using their
military identification cards (IDs). He referred to page 1,
line 10 of HB 357, which limits access to special occasions,
noting this bill removes that limitation.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said this bill allows spouses ages 21 and
over, as well. Section 2 relates to soldiers under the age of
21 and allows them to enter licensed premises of patriotic clubs
if they are members or if they are guests of members. Again, he
reiterated that this bill does not allow anyone under the age of
21 to drink alcohol. He commented that military commanders will
sometimes use these clubs to hold off-base commanders calls to
welcome soldiers home, to give them a sendoff, or to share
important information with them. He surmised that dividing the
young and older soldiers could erode morale. He said this bill
would allow soldiers under the age of 21 to enter such clubs if
they are members or guests of members. Section 3 provides
conforming language regarding the allowance for club admission
granted in Section 2, emphasizing that this bill does not permit
underage soldiers to drink alcohol, but rather clarifies that
soldiers over the age of 21 and their spouses don't have to wait
for a special occasion to visit patriotic clubs. It would
further clarify that soldiers under the age of 21 can visit if
they are club members or guests. He suggested that showing
support for this bill would show that the legislature wants to
accommodate the special needs of the young men and women in
uniform who defend our freedom.
3:27:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD remarked that this allows not only the
spouse but also for someone under the age of 21 to visit the
establishment.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER answered yes.
3:28:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked the differences between patriotic
clubs and a regular restaurant or bar that serves alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER responded that Alaska law allows access
to persons under the age of 21 to enter if accompanied by an
adult, but it does not allow them to drink.
3:29:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether some fraternization rules
were unique to the military, but he assumed that those rules can
coexist under the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER answered that this bill does not address
fraternization.
3:29:33 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 357.
3:29:54 PM
SHIRLEY COTE, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC
Board), Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development, said she was available for questions and the board
was neutral on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether she had any concerns.
MS. COTE answered that underage persons are not allowed to drink
on the premises.
3:31:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to page 2, line 16 of HB 357,
which read, in part, "(3) the person is under the age of 16
years, is accompanied by a person over the age of 21 years, the
parent or guardian of the underage person consents, the premises
are designed by the board as a restaurant for the purpose of
this section, and the person enters and remains only for
dining...." She asked whether the board is comfortable with
this language.
MS. COTE answered yes; plus she pointed out added language that
states the person is permitted on the premises under AS
04.11.110(g), which is the club license. Thus, the club would
be treated in a similar fashion to the restaurant.
3:32:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how parents would give permission
for youth to be on premises.
MS. COTE explained permission would happen in the same way that
it currently happens with restaurants. In the event the ABC
Board receives complaints about underage drinking, the board
would investigate this activity. Additionally, she stated that
parents or guardians consent to coaches bringing kids to have
pizza; but it is up to the school and the restaurant licensee to
ensure that the activity is in compliance with the law.
3:33:01 PM
CHAIR OLSON pointed out that establishments also have liquor
licenses [and revocation] could be a "heavy hammer."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that the language in paragraph (3)
that Representative Reinbold highlighted is existing statute and
this bill does not change the law for people under 16.
3:33:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related a scenario in which VFW would
change its atmosphere to more of a "Denny's" type restaurant.
She did not see letters of support and wondered if any
controversy exists.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to a letter of support from a
former communed state commander of the VFW and from the
commander of post 10029 in members' packets. He emphasized that
VFW's are used as family meeting places. He recalled the Eagle
River post 9785 facility frequently rents out its downstairs for
public events although the upstairs has a licensed premise. He
reminded members that this bill does not pertain to person under
the age of 16 accessing licensed premises.
3:34:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD acknowledged she has been to many
events, but she said she has always been a guest and has been
invited to attend. She wanted to be certain the people who
frequent these facilities are comfortable with this and it
sounds like that is the case.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related that he was in Eagle River for
the Vietnam Veteran's welcome home day ceremony and was
encouraged to pursue this bill, thus there has been interest in
his home town for the bill.
3:35:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether this bill would include
the Elks or Moose club or only to military affiliations.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related his understanding that a
patriotic license is distinct from the fraternal organizations.
MS. COTE explained that the club license authorizes a club or
organization, which is a club for fraternal organization,
patriotic organization, or social organization that has been
chartered by a state or national organization for a period of
two consecutive years prior to an application for a license
under the section. Or it could be chartered by the national
organization that has maintained a chartered club or
organization for 20 years in the state. Thus, if a club meets
either one of those criteria, it can have a club license.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said it sounds like the answer is yes.
3:36:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the [Benevolent and
Protective Order of] Elks Club and {Loyal Order of] Moose club
fall under this rubric.
MS. COTE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report HB 357 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 357 was reported from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
3:37:17 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:37 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.
HB 254-POWERS OF ATTORNEY
3:40:41 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 254, "An Act relating to powers of attorney;
relating to the uniform probate code; and providing for an
effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 254 labeled 28-LS1057\U, Bannister,
3/6/14, [Version U] as the working document.
CHAIR OLSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:41:14 PM
GINGER BLAIDELL, Staff, Representative Shelley Hughes, Alaska
State Legislature, explained the changes in Version U. She
stated that the bill is lengthy and technical. The sponsor
decided to file the bill just prior to the filing deadline and
to make technical corrections to the bill later, which were
incorporated into Version U. The power of attorney bill does
primarily four things, she explained. First, page 2 outlines
the power of attorney structure so the principal, who has the
assets, is more likely to consider each type of financial power
that is being awarded to the agent, who will be acting on their
behalf. Additionally, referring to page 27, language was added
to improve the ability for an agent to be removed of his/her
powers in the event dishonesty or a breach of the agreement
occurs. Second, a new section on page 28 specifies the agent's
duties and it specifically identifies the duties of a person who
obtains the power of attorney. Third, page 32, proposed Section
24, outlines the criteria for acceptance of power of attorney.
Fourth, the language on page 34 was added that outlines the
steps taken when a power of attorney is terminated or if the
agent resigns, which previously was not clearly defined.
3:43:20 PM
MS. BLAISDELL commented that language is updated throughout the
bill so disability was replaced with incapacity. For example,
there may be a number of instances in which a person may not be
capable of making financial decisions due to the person being
out of the country, missing, or temporarily injured. Thus,
incapacity was a more appropriate term, which is defined on page
36 in paragraph (3).
3:44:19 PM
MS. BLAISDELL provided a section-by-section analysis of HB 254,
Version U. Section 1 would replace the current definition of an
agent. She related that previous terms included "attorney-in-
fact" and other terms that applied to the agent; however, this
bill defines "agent" and replaces the terms with "agent."
Section 2, a technical change, corrects the definition of
"state" to include the U.S. Virgin Islands. Section 3 adds new
definitions for "durable," "electronic," "power of attorney,"
"principal," "record," and "sign" as these terms relate to this
act. She added that "sign" means, "with present intent to
authenticate or adopt a record...." She pointed out that some
individuals suffering from arthritis can barely sign their name
once and this is intended to be less burdensome.
3:45:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to the new definition for
"durable" and asked whether it will it apply to living wills.
MS. BLAISDELL said the definitions only apply to this act.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD remarked that she particularly liked the
changes on page 3 and 4 since the transactions designating the
power of attorney are broken into categories.
3:46:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT recalled the last power of attorney he
was involved in and asked why a power of attorney is not
acceptable in small claims case.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that he was unsure, but the
court has separate civil rules for small claims, which fall
under district court rules.
MS. BLAISDELL related that the definition of "sign" in Section
3, allows the person to adopt a tangible symbol or electronic
sound. Thus, a person could fill out the forms, she said.
3:48:28 PM
MS. BLAISDELL stated that Section 4 amends the statutory form
required to assign a power of attorney, from giving the person
single powers to opt out of each choice, with the intent of
allowing the incapacitated person the opportunity to make better
choices by helping inform the party what functions are being
signed over. She emphasized that this represents the most
significant change, which was recommended by the long-term care
ombudsman and some senior centers, so that one signature doesn't
encompass and transfer power over every legal transaction.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD remarked that she is very excited. She
predicted that the changes this bill makes will be very helpful.
3:49:42 PM
MS. BLAISDELL referred to Section 5, which amends the statutes
that remove the powers to revoke, create, or modify a trust as a
general authority. Throughout this bill, language "revoke,
create, or amend a trust" is removed, she said.
MS. BLAISDELL said three areas must be specifically initialed or
the agent or agents will not have the power of authority since
these areas can greatly impact the incapacitated person: first,
for the authority being granted to create, amend, revoke, or
terminate an inter vivos trust; second, for the authority to
make a gift, subject to the limitations of AS 13.26.244 (h) and
any special instructions in this power of attorney; and third,
to create or change a beneficiary designation. Again, these
three areas may be overarching of some of the other areas and
must be specifically granted to the agent or agents, she said.
3:50:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to page 4, line 20 and asked
whether this would be a living trust.
MS. BLAISDELL answered yes, that an inter vivos trust is used in
estate planning and is also known as a living trust.
3:51:18 PM
MS. BLAISDELL related that Sections 6-7 removes "revoke, create
or modify a trust" since it must be specified. She related that
Section 8 allows the agent to credit and debit cards. She
clarified that the last time the power of attorney statutes were
considered was in 1988 and not everyone had electronic
transactions; thus, this will move power of attorney actions
into the 21st Century.
MS. BLAISDELL stated that Section 9 amends existing statute to
conduct additional business related actions to further protect
the interests of the principal; Section 10 amends existing
statute to exercise investment powers available, which had not
previously been included, and Section 11, on page 16, would
repeal powers for the agent to receive general authority with
respect to gift transactions.
MS. BLAISDELL said that Section 12 would amend statutes to
further define insurance transactions and allow the power of
attorney to make decisions on insurance and issuance payments.
Page 22 relates to provisions for personal representative
authorizations to make child support payments and assist the
principal who normally provided support for someone to continue
to provide it.
3:54:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked whether an agent would exercise
the authority to allow a person to live in customary support.
He asked for clarification on how that would affect the power of
attorney and whether it would take away or expand the authority.
He wondered if the agent would take the power away and "control
the purse strings."
MS. BLAISDELL suggested there were two ways to think about it.
First, the principal could select to have the agent take
specific action, such as to only balance the principal's
checkbook. The existing law allows the power of attorney to
maintain customary standard of living for the spouse, children,
and other dependents. She explained that [paragraph (1)] added
a child "later born" and she was unsure if it would give more or
less authority. She commented that it could be circumstantial
to the person making the choices.
3:56:41 PM
MS. BLAISDELL referred to page 24, paragraph (15), which notes
that the agent may be privileged to Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act (HIPPA) protected information in
instances in which the agent has been asked to take care of some
of the health care on behalf of the principal. She turned to
page 25, Section 15, which gives the power of attorney or civil
or military service benefits, which has arisen due to the U.S.
involvement in which some military with overseas action did not
return home in same capacity. She referred to page 26, proposed
Section 16, which she said relates to retirement plans.
MS. BLAISDELL stated that Section 17 relates to the state
recognizing power of attorney executed in another state so long
as it was completed under the rules of the other jurisdiction.
She explained that Section 18, which was supported by the long-
term ombudsman, addresses relieving a power of attorney if the
person committed dishonesty with an improper motive or with
reckless indifference. She explained that previously it wasn't
possible to remove a person once they had the power of attorney.
3:59:24 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked for clarification on the numbering sequence.
MS. BLAISDELL agreed that she may have started with the original
bill so the sections didn't match Version U. She reported that
Section 19 includes all of the agent's duties, including acting
in good faith, and within the scope of duty granted to an agent.
She reiterated that it describes the duties of an agent, as well
as provisions if a breach of agreement occurs.
MS. BLAISDELL related that Section 20 replaces "principal"
"incapacity" and "agent" throughout the bill. She characterized
the changes as being technical changes.
4:01:07 PM
MS. BLAISDELL pointed out that Section 22 identifies how
incapacity is determined, including when a principal suffers an
impairment in his/her ability to receive and evaluate
information or make or communicate decisions, or because the
principal is missing, detained or incarcerated. She stated that
Section 24 explains the acceptance of power of attorney so
agents can better understand their responsibilities on behalf of
the principal. Section 25 outlines the termination of power of
attorney and Sections 26 and 27 are technical changes. Section
28 adds additional definitions, including benefits from
government programs or civil or military service, good faith,
incapacity, and retirement plans. She summarized the four
primary changes in the bill. It would also revise the form to
make it more responsive for principals so they can better
understand the authority they are giving the agent. It improves
the language to remove a power of attorney if the person is not
acting appropriately. It identifies the duties of a power of
attorney. Finally, it changes some definitions.
4:02:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON acknowledged the complexity of family
law, noting the frequent use of conservatorship and trustees.
He asked how this interacts with those terms, in particular,
conservatorship, in which someone has similar powers, but is
deemed conservator.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that she was unsure. She stated that all
definitions were specific to a power of attorney.
4:03:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether a model law was used to
craft the bill or if the sponsor proposed the concept.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that the AARP first suggested the
changes.
4:04:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHELLEY HUGHES, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that she was first approached by people at the senior center.
She discussed this with AARP and considered uniform law changes
and which ones made sense in Alaska. She said that the sponsor
has worked with the Association of Mature Americans, the AARP's
counterpart, and the organization has been supportive. Further
she worked with the long-term care ombudsman and the governor's
office and said it is a joint effort. She related that the last
substantial work on this section of law was done in 1988. About
one in seven Alaskans is age 60 or older. She also pointed out
the importance of assisting vulnerable Alaskans and helping
children assist their parents. These changes are compatible
with interstate laws, which she said was a reason to consider
the effects of the uniform law, especially since it is likely
Alaskans will be separated from their parents by a state line.
4:07:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to page 3 line 31, subparagraph
(G), estate transactions. She related a scenario in which a
principal requests a will, but subsequently gives someone the
ability to handle estate transactions. She also referred to
page 4, line 26-28, that agents can be different agents. She
asked who would have the authority.
4:08:31 PM
MS. BLAISDELL referred to subparagraph (G) and pointed out that
page 21, Section 13, identifies the structure for power of
attorney for estate transactions. She recalled the legislative
attorney's explanation that a will is used when a person dies,
and a power of attorney is used when the person is living. The
provisions in a will might flip completely, versus what the
principal outlines in the power of attorney for the day to day
actions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he believed she is correct.
CHAIR OLSON said he likes the bill and he hoped the sectional
will better match the bill at the next committee.
4:10:22 PM
KEN HELANDER, Director for Advocacy, AARP-Alaska, said that he
and his predecessor, Pat Luby, have worked on this issue with
the sponsor and believes this bill protects the interests of
older Alaskans. He related that a power of attorney is a legal
document used by an individual, the principal, to name someone
else, the agent, to make financial decisions and to act on the
principal's behalf. He clarified that this is not a health care
power of attorney and it does not offer health care decisions,
but it does authorize planning for the possibility of future
incapacity and avoid the court appointment of a guardian or
conservator. He pointed out that a power of attorney is
private, without any oversight by a court.
MR. HELANDER said that state laws are often unclear about the
duty owed by the agent to the principal. This combination of
broad authority, lack of oversight, and unclear duties makes it
possible for agents to misuse their authority. He said power of
attorney abuse, often called a "license to steal," is a form of
financial exploitation. To help curb this type of elder
financial exploitation, AARP supports state efforts to expand
the power of attorney laws by adopting reforms at least as
stringent as those outlined in the uniform power of attorney
act. The act contains provisions that aim to promote autonomy
and to prevent power of attorney abuse. The most important of
these provisions pertain to the "hot powers." Under the current
statute, the principal gives blanket consent to these powers
with a signature unless they intentionally cross them off a
list. This bill, following the uniform power of attorney
format, requires the principal to opt in by initialing each
specific power. This action requires careful consideration as
to the duties being delegated to the agent and lessens the
opportunity for exploitation. Additionally, this bill more
clearly defines the responsibilities of the agent to protect the
interests of the principal and it sets out guidelines for third
party acceptance. He concluded that the AARP supports HB 254,
Version U, and believes it will strengthen protection of
vulnerable adults in Alaska. He said that 13 states have
enacted the Uniform Power of Attorney Act, with Hawaii and Iowa
awaiting their respective governor's signatures to become the
14th and 15th states. Connecticut and Kansas are also
considering these changes. He encouraged committee members to
help include Alaska on this growing list.
4:14:11 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 254.
CHAIR OLSON removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he thinks this is a good bill. He
referred to page 3, which requires a principal to initial
certain authorizations that might be a problem if the person is
truly incapacitated and can't initial. He suggested that these
provisions might be dealt with in another committee and aren't a
reason to stop the bill.
4:15:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 254 labeled 28-LS1057\U, Bannister,
3/6/14, out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, the CSHB
254(L&C) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
4:15:31 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:15 p.m. to 4:18 p.m.
HB 336-ALCOHOL SALES NEAR SCHOOL/CHURCH
4:18:17 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 336, "An Act relating to sales of alcoholic
beverages near a school or church."
4:18:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, stated that
HB 336 will increase the buffer between premises selling liquor
and schools or churches from 200 to 400 feet. In response to a
question, she acknowledged the bill is not retroactive.
4:19:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked how many facilities currently lie
within 200-400 feet of school or church facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said the department only tracks the current
restrictions, which prohibit alcohol sales within 200 feet of
schools or churches. In response to a question, she agreed that
any existing facility would not be affected, but it would limit
new establishments to 400 feet.
4:20:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related a scenario in which a church
moves into a mall with a liquor store or bar. He asked how this
bill would affect the existing liquor store or bar.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered it would be prohibited within 400
feet of the entrance. She explained the calculations, which may
include walking to the sidewalk, crossing a street, and resuming
walking on a sidewalk so the measurements mirror the typical
pathway to travel to and from the establishment.
4:21:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related a scenario in which a new
charter school moves into a neighborhood strip mall. He asked
whether the onus would be on the school to find another place or
if the existing alcohol establishment would be displaced.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that the charter school would need
to pick a different location.
4:22:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that some charter schools meet
temporarily in churches. She asked for clarification on the
measurement and if it is door to door or from the property line.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered by reading language [Section 1,
page 2, lines 13-15], for the restriction, which read: "(B) the
premises would be located in a building having a public entrance
within 400 [200] feet of the boundary line of a school or a
church building in which religious services are being regularly
conducted;...." She clarified that current law is 200 feet and
this bill would increase the limit to 400 feet.
4:23:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that there could be a big
difference between door to door and driveway. She asked if the
entrance means the physical entrance or the driveway entrance.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled discussing this point with the
department and related that it viewed it as "door to door" and
not "as the crow flies" or the shortest distance. It would
include the distance and route a person would take to travel
from one establishment to the other.
4:24:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for further clarification that it
would be a door to door measurement.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR agreed. She read [page 2, lines 6-8] of HB
336, which read, "... is measured from the outer boundary line
of the school or the public entrance of the church building by
the shortest pedestrian route to the nearest public entrance of
the restaurant or eating place;". She highlighted that the
aforementioned is existing language in statute and reflects the
current measurement.
4:24:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked if a school could waive this.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered no. The intent of the bill is to
extend a buffer for all future schools and churches and it would
apply to both schools and churches.
4:25:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER expressed concern that this bill
represents a statewide solution to a local problem. He said
that this bill might put distance between schools and liquor
establishments, but this bill does not address or fix
alcoholism. It just puts the problem farther out of sight. He
suggested it could be argued that allowing children to see the
effects of alcohol abuse would be a disincentive to take up
drinking. He stated he was glad that bill would only apply to
future construction and is not retroactive. He indicated his
intent and desire is not to have someone come back to the
legislature and expand the buffer and require bars be moved. He
acknowledged that the bill would protect some kids.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she appreciated his comments. She
acknowledged the importance of not getting ahead of what the
bill might do. She offered her hope that this bill might be a
part of a bigger effort on the issues of alcoholism although
this bill does not address it.
4:27:00 PM
CHAIR OLSON answered that some of the larger churches have
parking lots which extend to 400 feet. He suggested that 400
feet is probably a good compromise.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reported that most other states have buffers
greater than 200 feet, with 200 feet being at the low end, and
1,000 feet at upper range. The other states also had a variety
of ways to measure the distance. She stated that Alaska is on
lower end for buffers, which is one reason for the bill.
4:27:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the Cabaret, Hotel,
Restaurant & Retailer's Association (CHARR) has taken a position
on this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered no. She said that she has been in
close contact with CHARR and does not want this bill to be anti-
business. She related her understanding that the business
owners are responsible and everyone is trying to work on the
same problems without placing fault on anyone. She has kept
CHARR informed and to date no one has responded in that way.
CHAIR OLSON surmised that if the restriction had been increased
to 500 feet or 1,000 feet that someone from CHARR would be
testifying.
4:28:58 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 336.
4:29:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether any church groups have
"weighed in" on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that this bill would affect future
establishments, but she checked with churches but since the bill
doesn't directly impact these churches, it wasn't a concern.
4:29:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD wondered how it affects youth meeting in
churches. She was unsure if the organization would be impacted.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 1, lines 14-15, to language
which states, in part, " ... or a church building in which
religious services are being regularly conducted; ...." She
offered her belief that it is enforced based on a building but
not on church youth ministry meeting in a building.
4:30:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether restaurants that serve
beer and wine would be subject to the additional restrictions
under the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered yes, for future locations near a
school or church.
4:31:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related his understanding that
establishments with liquor licenses shouldn't be located within
400 feet of a school or church. He asked how the bill would
affect a church or a school that wants to move into a mall. He
wondered if the liquor license could be renewed.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked for clarification on the question.
CHAIR OLSON suggested clarification on the effect of liquor
license renewals if a school or church moves within 400 feet of
an establishment.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related her understanding that the liquor
license owner would not be affected. She clarified that the
owner would be "grandfathered in" as an existing licensee. She
believed it would be the church's responsibility to find a
location that is outside the 400 feet.
CHAIR OLSON related his understanding that the church can't
argue against the liquor license renewal if it moved in.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR agreed. She stated that the church would
need to follow the 400-foot buffer.
4:33:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON pointed out that the bill doesn't clearly
state this but only discusses the liquor premises not being
closer than 400 feet to a school or church. He said he
appreciated the intent of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that [the 200-foot] buffer is
existing statute so it is the way it's being enforced now. She
surmised that when the existing statute was passed it must have
been the most appropriate way to insert the boundaries.
4:34:35 PM
CHAIR OLSON related his understanding that the bill addresses
relocation of the liquor establishment to the church.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON agreed, but referred to Section 2 line 12,
which relates to restriction of location near churches and
schools. He asked why this language doesn't also provide a
restriction of location near liquor stores.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that these changes fall under the
alcohol section of the statutes. Thus, the context is from the
perspective of the liquor licensees and the owner's relationship
with the church and school. She suggested different statutes
might focus on the perspective of schools or churches.
The committee took an at-ease from 4:35 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.
4:42:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, as a follow-up to Representative
Chenault's question, asked whether a church or school must
consider being outside a 400-foot buffer from a licensed liquor
establishment under the bill.
SHIRLEY COTE, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC
Board), Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development, explained that under current law if a licensed
premise is at a location and a church or school wants to move
within 200 feet of the premise that the decision would be up to
the church or school to decide. She said that the ABC Board
doesn't have anything in place that would require a licensee to
move out of the location since the business was established in
its location prior to the school or church moving in. She said
that the board would make those types of decisions and it could
be a consideration at the time of liquor license renewal if
objections or protests arise. She acknowledged that mechanisms
are in place if issues or problems arise. However, currently if
a church or school has moved within the prohibited buffer zone,
the board has not made the licensee shut down its business.
4:44:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related his understanding that even if
the law changed to 400 feet, if a church chose to locate within
that distance it would not affect the liquor licensee unless the
church subsequently decided it didn't like the alcohol sales
nearby and petitioned the ABC Board to try to make liquor
license owners move its establishment. He asked whether this
has happened or could happen.
MS. COTE answered that this has not happened although it doesn't
mean it can't happen. She indicated that every other year
during license renewal any person, including a locally governing
body, can object to the renewal and the board would take it
under consideration.
4:46:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked whether a large church could move
within 200 feet or 400 feet of a liquor establishment and create
enough local pressure to cause problems for the liquor license
holder and the establishment could be forced to relocate.
MS. COTE said it is a possibility, in particular, if issues or
problems later arose, that the church could come to the board
and it would consider the issue during renewal, although she did
not recall any situation where that has happened.
4:47:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT recalled reading in an Anchorage paper
that a liquor store was having problems, but he was unsure if it
was a church, school, or local community that had objected. He
did not recall the details but he imagined that public testimony
would be considered by the board.
MS. COTE recalled situations in which a licensed premise would
be well outside the 200 feet but noted if the public outcry has
been substantial the liquor license renewal has not been
approved. She noted that this type of action could happen
regardless of the distance to a school or church.
4:48:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related his understanding that a church
could raise issues which could affect liquor license renewal.
However, this bill addresses a geographical distance. He
wondered if a church moved within 200 or 400 feet of a business
if the business and church could coexist just fine, but during
the license renewal may raise an objection. He asked whether
the aforementioned objection could be based solely on proximity.
MS. COTE answered yes. She said that even with a new liquor
license application objections could certainly be raised.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether anything in state statute
other than renewal provisions would ban a church from moving
into within 200 or 400 feet of [a bar].
MS. COTE answered that is correct.
4:49:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD recalled that local government has
bought out space in malls. She related a scenario in which
government entities, such as a school district or perhaps a
preschool moves into a mall. She asked whether this would
impact preschools and if preschools are considered schools.
MS. COTE said preschools are considered schools. In further
response to a question, Ms. Cote indicated if the licensed
premises were already on location and the school or church moved
in, it would be the school or church's decision to do so. She
indicated that in her experience licensees do not want to lose
their liquor licenses so the owners tend to work to address any
issues. She said if a school subsequently raised an issue about
any premise that ABC Board would consider the issue at the time
of the liquor license renewal.
4:52:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that it is important to
address this issue and identify any parties impacted.
4:52:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said it seems as though a school or
church could decide to locate within 400 feet of a liquor
establishment, but it couldn't then question the premise selling
liquor located within 400 feet of the school. However, the
school could raise some other issue at the time of the liquor
license renewal. He reiterated that the school or church
couldn't raise the proximity argument since it was created by
the school or church.
MS. COTE answered yes; however, the school could raise the issue
if a problem arises. She said that the board would work with
the licensee to correct any problem, for example, if complaints
arose that underage persons were being served. She said that it
would take a great deal to revoke an active liquor license on a
mere objection. She said, "I mean it just doesn't happen."
4:54:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report HB 336 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 336 was reported from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
4:55:08 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|