Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/03/2015 09:00 AM Senate 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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB6 | |
| SB30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 3, 2015
9:01 a.m.
9:01:02 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Erin Shine, Staff, Senator Anna MacKinnon; Mike Stedman,
Owner, Alaska Seaplanes, Juneau; Craig Dahl, Executive
Director, Juneau Chamber of Commerce, Juneau; Dan Corson,
Operations Director, Wings Airways, Juneau; Jim Parise,
Director of Fixed Income, Alaska Permanent Fund, Juneau;
Stuart Cohen, Owner, Invisible World, Juneau; Tom Williams,
Financial Officer, Ward Air, Juneau; Doug Gardner,
Director, Legislative Legal Services; Hilary Martin,
Attorney, Legislative Legal Services; Jordan Shilling,
Staff, Senator John Coghill; Chuck Kopp, Staff, Senator
Peter Micciche.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Lynn Willis, Self, Eagle River; Tom Laurent, Self,
Petersburg; Paula Rak, Self, Wrangell; David Berg, Viking
Travel, Petersburg; Marina Lindsey, Self, Juneau; Rick
Currier, Self, Juneau; Dorothy Wilson, Self, Juneau; Patti
Mackey, President and CEO, Ketchikan Visitors Bureau,
Ketchikan; Posie Boggs, Self, Anchorage; Mary DeSmet, Self,
Juneau; Brett Carlson, Self, Coldfoot; Tom Mayor, Director,
Division of General Services, Department of Administration,
Juneau.
SUMMARY
SB 6 ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
CSSB 6 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1 (ADM).
SB 30 MARIJUANA REG; CONT. SUBST; CRIMES; DEFENSES
SB 30 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 6
"An Act exempting the state from daylight saving time;
and providing for an effective date."
9:01:46 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for SB 6, Work Draft 29-LS0111\N (Shutts,
3/2/15). Senator Dunleavy OBJECTED for discussion.
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, stated there
were two new sections in the committee substitute. She
looked at page 1, line 12, which added a requirement that
the governor petition the U.S. Department of Transportation
21 days after the effective date of that section. She
looked at page 2, line 11, which provided the immediate
effective date for Section 2 for the petition. The
effective date for Section 1, which was the elimination of
daylight saving time remained January 1, 2017.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the bill was intended to start
a process for the U.S. Department of Transportation to
examine the issue. The department could deny the change if
they felt that it did not have a positive impact on
commerce. Ms. Shine replied in the affirmative. She
explained that the petition would not trigger the time zone
change in Alaska.
Senator Dunleavy asserted that the department must find
that the change had a positive impact on commerce. Ms.
Shine responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the requirements that the
department used to consider a time zone change. Ms. Shine
referred to a document "Procedure for Moving and Area from
One Time Zone to Another" (copy on file). The overarching
substantial requirement would be to decide whether the
change to a time zone was convenient for commerce.
Senator Dunleavy WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Work Draft 29-LS0111\N was ADOPTED.
MIKE STEDMAN, OWNER, ALASKA SEAPLANES, JUNEAU, testified
against the legislation. He felt that the bill was did not
benefit commerce. He stated that his company had several
flights that operated late into the evenings, so losing an
hour of daylight would affect those operations
substantially. He stated that the five hour time difference
from the east coast would be difficult for acquiring parts.
He shared that he was also personally against the
legislation, because it would affect evening recreation.
9:07:09 AM
Senator Olson wondered if there were conversations with the
other extreme of the time zone in Alaska. Mr. Stedman
replied that the other operators had similar concerns.
Senator Olson asked if those businesses were aligned with
Mr. Stedman's perspective. Mr. Stedman replied in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that she had received a letter
from a float plane operating company that was in support of
the legislation, because they dealt with issues of fog in
the early morning.
Senator Bishop asked for a timeframe of the most impacted
evening flying. Mr. Stedman replied that the bill would
negatively affect evening flying beginning in mid-July to
mid-September.
CRAIG DAHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JUNEAU CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
JUNEAU, spoke against the legislation. He shared that there
was a survey conducted among the Chamber members, and over
25 percent of the members answered the survey. He stated
that 74 percent of those responding were against SB 6. He
furthered that 20 percent were in favor and 6 percent had
no opinion. The comments fell into two groups: 1) the loss
of one hour of daylight affecting tour operations; and 2)
the differential in time change with the Alaska's adjacent
market areas.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the members were informed
about the other issues of why the bill was proposed. Mr.
Dahl replied that the members were presented a straight-
forward yes or no answer option. The members were also
provided a link to the Senate Finance Committee survey.
9:12:23 AM
DAN CORSON, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR, WINGS AIRWAYS, JUNEAU,
spoke against the legislation. He echoed Mr. Stedman's
comments. He shared that the bill would cause a 15 percent
loss of business.
Senator Olson wondered if there was a concern from federal
officials as to whether the bill would have enforcement
action against pilots or the air taxi. Mr. Corson replied
that he had not heard from the federal government about
enforcement action.
Senator Olson stressed that he was concerned with flight
standards of the federal government. He wondered if federal
agencies had voiced an opinion on the bill. Mr. Corson
replied that he had not heard from any federal agencies.
JIM PARISE, DIRECTOR FIXED INCOME, ALASKA PERMANENT FUND,
JUNEAU, commented against the legislation. He stressed that
they often recruited employees, based on a nice quality of
life in Juneau. He remarked that pushing the beginning of
the day to 4am, would cause many employees to get to bed
around 7pm.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if Mr. Parise would be in
support of two time zones in the state, as long as Juneau
was only four hours from New York City. Mr. Parise was only
commenting on the original bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that the current bill stated
that there would be an elimination of daylight savings, so
half of the year would be a four hour difference and half
of the year would be a five hour difference from New York
City. The bill would petition the federal government to
advance Alaska to Pacific Time.
Mr. Parise felt that the Pacific Time would be less
troublesome, but there would still be some confusion as to
what time to conduct business with New York.
9:17:19 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche surmised that a new time zone would see
an improvement from four hours to three hours. Mr. Parise
agree.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if Mr. Parise was in
opposition. Mr. Parise stated that he was entering
comments.
LYNN WILLIS, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. He felt that the
arguments supporting daylight saving time were not
sufficient in forcing 700,000 Alaskans to observe the
archaic law twice a year. He felt that the intent of the
federal law authorizing daylight saving time was to save
energy, and he felt that there was no testimony indicating
a reduction of energy costs by observing daylight saving
time.
Co-Chair MacKinnon apologized for not hearing Mr. Willis's
testimony at the bills previous hearing.
TOM LAURENT, SELF, PETERSBURG (via teleconference), spoke
against the original version of SB 6. He shared that moving
Southeast Alaska to the Alaska Standard Time lost an hour
of daylight during the summers. He was did not want to lose
another hour of evening daylight.
9:21:51 AM
PAULA RAK, SELF, WRANGELL (via teleconference), testified
against the original version legislation. She did not want
to lose an hour of daylight in the evenings. She felt that
an hour of daylight at 2am did not provide for a better
quality of life.
STUART COHEN, OWNER, INVISIBLE WORLD, JUNEAU, spoke against
the legislation. He stated that the legislation would
impact his business in a number of ways. He shared that the
evening tourist business after dinner was approximately 10
percent of the sales for the year. He felt that removing
the light may force cruise ship passengers to remain on the
boat.
9:26:17 AM
TOM WILLIAMS, FINANCIAL OFFICER, WARD AIR, JUNEAU,
testified against the legislation. He felt that the
legislation would adversely impact his business and
personal life. He felt that the initial drivers of the
legislation included health and safety issues; and also the
time zone issue. He felt that the original bill would have
an adverse effect on the Southeast Alaska economy.
DAVID BERG, VIKING TRAVEL, PETERSBURG (via teleconference),
spoke against the legislation. He felt that the health
issues that some likened to daylight savings time would
still occur at various times of the year. He felt that the
visitors to Alaska would be confused by the different time
zones.
9:32:18 AM
MARINA LINDSEY, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), spoke
against the legislation. She felt that eliminating daylight
saving time would only further separate Alaska from the
contiguous United States. She worked in an office that was
based in Maryland, and hoped that she would not need to
arrive to work earlier, should the legislation pass.
RICK CURRIER, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the legislation. He shared that he and his
wife were each teachers, and saw a disruption in students.
Even though he had experienced a negative disruption, he
was against the legislation. He felt that Juneau was
already in the wrong time zone.
DOROTHY WILSON, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), felt
that Southeast Alaska should not be a different time zone
than the rest of the state. She shared that she conducted
business throughout the state, and felt that splitting time
zones in the state would have an adverse effect on her
business and personal life.
9:38:59 AM
PATTI MACKEY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, KETCHIKAN VISITORS BUREAU,
KETCHIKAN (via teleconference), spoke against the
legislation. She relayed that some of the tourism
businesses in Ketchikan would be negatively impacted by the
loss of evening daylight. She remarked that some of the
maritime vessel operations would also be negatively
impacted. She focused her comments on the impact on the
cruise ship industry.
POSIE BOGGS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against SB 6. She shared that there were 23 national health
centers that were reflected in Alaska's health non-profits.
She shared that she was a volunteer for literacy non-
profits, and her colleagues were online late at night from
the eastern part of the U.S. She felt that it would disrupt
the health work, because it often took weeks to take phone
meetings with researchers.
MARY DESMET, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), spoke
against the legislation. She stated that she had
experienced all of the time zone changes in Alaska. She
stressed that Alaska was a large state, so most of the
impacts were related to Southeast Alaska. She felt that
issue was extremely complicated. She urged the committee to
examine the issue further, and she felt that the statistics
in the polls did not reflect accurate data. She urged the
committee to focus on other issues.
9:46:12 AM
BRETT CARLSON, SELF, COLDFOOT (via teleconference),
testified against the legislation. He appreciated the
efforts of the committee. He stressed that it started to
get darker in the Arctic region beginning in August. He
stated that it was important that there be sunlight for the
flight seeing industry. He remarked that time zone change
would eliminate the ability to operate the tours in the
last quarter of the season.
Senator Olson stressed that safety was the paramount
concern in the air travel industry. He wondered how the
legislation would impact Mr. Carlson's safety operations.
Mr. Carson replied that he also operated an air taxi
service. He stated that Alaskans tended to fly later in the
evening. He stressed that the adjustment to early evening
departure times in the late summer was in order to avoid
the darkness. He remarked that many rural aircrafts did not
have sophisticated lighting and navigation systems.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there was a zero fiscal
note. She wondered if the committee substitute would
require a change in the fiscal note.
9:53:22 AM
TOM MAYOR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF GENERAL SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, JUNEAU (via teleconference),
responded that the department did not anticipate a change
to the fiscal note.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to REPORT CS SB 6 (FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
Senator Hoffman commented that he understood the impacts of
the legislation on Southeast Alaska. He was a strong
supporter of keeping the capital in Juneau. He shared that
he represented western Alaska, and remarked that Dutch
Harbor was closer to Tokyo than it was to Washington D.C.
He stressed that there were many parts of the state that
would see a great benefit to the legislation. He stated
that every portion of the state of Alaska supported the
legislation in the survey that was provided by the
committee.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that there was a survey that
Alaskans could take on the Senate Finance Committee
website.
CSSB 6 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN1 (ADM).
9:57:37 AM
AT EASE
10:04:22 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 30
"An Act relating to controlled substances; relating to
marijuana; relating to driving motor vehicles when
there is an open marijuana container; and providing
for an effective date."
10:05:30 AM
DOUG GARDNER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES,
introduced himself.
HILARY MARTIN, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES,
introduced herself.
Mr. Gardner shared that he would present an overview of the
initiative. He understood that Vice-Chair Micciche had some
experience with the bill and the issue. He shared that the
goal of the presentation was to provide some working
familiarity of the initiative.
Co-Chair Kelly wondered if the PowerPoint was drafted by
legal services. Mr. Gardner replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Gardner discussed the PowerPoint presentation, "2014
General Election Ballot Measure No. 2" (copy on file). He
announced the title of the initiative, "An Initiative to
Tax and Regulate the Production, Sale, and Use of
Marijuana."
Mr. Gardner slide 2, "Purpose and Findings":
•Allow law enforcement to focus on violent crimes and
property crimes
•Enhance individual freedom
•Declare marijuana should be legal for persons 21
years of age or older
•In the interest of health and public safety,
production and sale of marijuana should be regulated
•Individuals show proof of age before purchasing
•Legitimate taxpaying business people, and not
criminal actors will conduct sales of marijuana
•Marijuana sold by regulated businesses will be
labeled and subject to regulation to inform and
protect consumers
•Does not intend to diminish the Alaska Supreme
Court's holding in Ravin v. State
•Does not require any individual or entity to
violate federal law, or exempt any individual or
entity from federal law
Senator Dunleavy wondered how the initiative would align
with federal enforcement. Mr. Gardner responded that the
initiative did not align with federal law. He did not
believe that the federal government would interfere with
the operation of the law. He stated that there could be
federal exposure in certain areas, such as federal lands.
Senator Dunleavy surmised that the approach was in
violation of federal law. Mr. Gardner replied that the
wording was in violation of federal law.
10:10:51 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that there would be a
presentation from the Department of Law on the federal
issues.
Vice-Chair Micciche felt that it was important to
understand the issues with the federal law limitations that
could possible collide with state law.
Mr. Gardner commented that the Department of Law would have
the best insight on the federal law issues.
Mr. Gardner looked at slide 3, "Personal Use of Marijuana":
The following acts by persons 21 years of age or older
are lawful
•Possessing, using, displaying, purchasing,
transporting, growing or processing
•Marijuana accessories
•One ounce or less of marijuana
•No more than 6 marijuana plants (3 or fewer
mature)
•Including marijuana produced by the plants on
premises where plants are grown
•Transferring one ounce or less of marijuana and
up to six immature plants to a person 21 or older
without remuneration
•Consumption of marijuana (except in public)
•Assisting a person 21 years of age or older in
the above
Mr. Gardner highlighted slide 4, "Restrictions on Personal
Cultivation; Penalty":
•Personal cultivation is subject to
•Plants not subject to public view without
binoculars, aircraft, etc.
•Secure plants from unauthorized access
•Only on cultivator's property or with consent of
person in lawful possession of property
10:15:53 AM
Mr. Gardner shared that the initiative provided a penalty
of up to $700 for violation of the provision.
Mr. Gardner looked at slide 5, "Public Consumption Banned":
Violation of up to $100
Mr. Gardner addressed slide 6, "False Identification
Penalty":
•Person under 21 years of age may not offer false
identification to
•Purchase marijuana or attempt to procure
marijuana or marijuana products
•Gain access to a marijuana establishment
Mr. Gardner discussed slide 7, "Marijuana Accessories
Authorized":
For persons 21 years of age or older
Mr. Gardner highlighted slide 8, "Lawful Operation of
Marijuana-Related Facilities":
•A person 21 years of age or older with valid
registration, may operate a retail marijuana store,
marijuana cultivation facility, marijuana product
manufacturing facility, or marijuana testing facility
•Lease or allow use of property for activities above
•Authorizes penalties for marijuana establishments
that violate their registration/license
•Personal use provisions do not apply to marijuana
establishments
Mr. Gardner looked at slide 9, "Marijuana Control Board":
At any time the legislature may create a marijuana
control board in DCCED to assume the duties given to
the ABC Board
Mr. Gardner highlighted slide 10, "Rulemaking":
Not later than 9 months after the effective date of
the initiative, the board shall adopt regulations for
marijuana establishments including procedures for
licensing, application fees, etc.; qualifications for
registration; security requirements; requirements to
prevent sales to persons under21; labeling
requirements; health and safety regulations reasonable
restrictions on advertising; and civil penalties for
failure to comply with regulations.
10:20:10 AM
Senator Hoffman queried the exact date of "not later than 9
months after the effective date of the initiative." Mr.
Gardner deferred to Ms. Martin. Ms. Martin replied that it
would be November 24, 2015.
10:20:50 AM
Mr. Gardner looked at slide 11, "Marijuana Establishment
Registrations":
•Applications and renewal applications; board shall
forward half of the registration fee to the local
regulatory commission for the local government in
which the establishment will operate.
•If local government has enacted a numerical limit on
marijuana establishments, board will ask local
government for input on location, etc.
Mr. Gardner discussed slide 12, "Local Control":
•Local governments may prohibit operation of marijuana
establishments by an ordinance or voter initiative.
•Local governments may
•Enact ordinances not in conflict with the
initiative relating to time, place, and manner
restrictions on marijuana establishments
•Designate a local regulatory authority to review
applications
•Establish procedures for issuing or revoking a
registration issued by a local government
•Establish annual schedule of fees
•Local governments may issue permits directly to
marijuana establishments if the board does not act on
an application within 90 days or if the board does not
adopt regulations within 9 months of the effective
date of initiative.
Mr. Gardner addressed slide 13, "Employers, Driving,
Minors, Property":
Initiative does not
•require an employer to permit use, etc.
•Alter DUI laws
•Permit transfer of marijuana to person under 21
•Prohibit a person or entity who owns or controls
private property from prohibiting or regulating
marijuana
Mr. Gardner addressed slide 14, "Medical Marijuana":
Not limited by the initiative
10:25:51 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that the current version of the
bill was not actual decriminalization, but rather attempted
to make marijuana products legal. She stressed that SB 30
did not have regulatory aspects of the initiative. She
stated that SB 60 was related to the Marijuana Control
Board. She stressed that SB 30 was strictly about the
criminal portion of the initiative.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if SB 60 dealt with marijuana
regulations.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that SB 60 dealt with the
Marijuana Control Board, and SB 62 dealt with the marijuana
regulations.
Senator Dunleavy queried the difference between
"legalization" and "decriminalization." Mr. Gardner replied
that the initiative was careful to create an allowable set
of uses for marijuana. He felt the initiative could be
looked at as a non-applicability section. He explained that
the bill attempted to allow, and not make criminal
penalties applicable to certain conduct. The bill allowed
for use consistent with personal use, other than the
establishments that sold into the market.
10:30:06 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that the Judiciary Committee
originally approached the bill with an affirmative defense.
The affirmative defense declared that there would not be a
charge for possession of marijuana. The committee took the
statute from the medical marijuana affirmative defense. The
Judiciary Committee further examined how a citizen would
defend itself, therefore putting on the state the burden of
proof. Mr. Gardner agreed that the state must prove that
the person was guilty.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that the committee substitute
would remove marijuana as a controlled substance, but still
regulate the marijuana.
Senator Dunleavy heard that decriminalization allowed for
the use of pot, and legalization allowed for an entire
industry to regulate a business built around marijuana. Mr.
Gardner shared that he did not fully understand the
question.
Ms. Martin shared that removing penalties for the
activities was one way to interpret the definition of
"decriminalization."
Senator Dunleavy felt that the question of federal
enforcement was important for Alaska.
Co-Chair Kelly commented that marijuana was illegal in
Alaska, because it was against federal law.
10:37:21 AM
Senator Bishop stated that the U.S. Attorney General did
not believe that marijuana should be legal.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that there would be a
presentation from Department of Law regarding the federal
ramifications of the legalization of marijuana in the
state.
Vice-Chair Micciche understood that there was a discrepancy
between the federal law and the state's rights.
Mr. Gardner understood the issue and furthered that there
would be different locations that the law would need to
adjust against.
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, introduced
himself.
CHUCK KOPP, STAFF, SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, introduced
himself.
10:42:11 AM
Mr. Shilling shared that the legislature had examined ways
to implement the ballot measure into statute. The ballot
measure's goal was to legalize marijuana, but did not
accomplish all of the necessary law adjustments. He stated
that there were several different approaches to drafting
the legislation. He stated that the affirmative defense
approach was used in medical marijuana and murder statutes.
There was some significant pushback to the affirmative
defense, because there remained the possibility that one
would need to defend themselves. There was also pushback to
using the defense approach. The current approach removed
marijuana from the controlled substance schedules. The
removal caused the bill to grow from 9 pages to almost 100
pages. There were many conforming amendments that simply
added the word, "marijuana." He shared that there were
approximately 130 conforming sections in the current
version of the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for an explanation of a couple of
the conforming changes in the bill.
Mr. Kopp looked at Section 1, which dealt with reckless
operation of aircraft. The section stated that a person may
not operate an aircraft occupied by a crew member or
passenger who was obviously under the influence of
intoxicated liquor or a controlled substance. He stated
that "marijuana" was added to that description, because it
was removed from the list of controlled substances. He
shared that Section 2 dealt with possession, control, or
consumption by persons under 21 years of age, and required
the court, as a condition of probation, to prohibit the use
of inhalants, controlled substances, and alcohol as a
condition of probation. He explained that "marijuana" was
added to that section. He further highlighted some sections
that added the word, "marijuana."
Vice-Chair Micciche noted that Section 54 started with
conforming amendments again. He wondered if the committee
should examine Sections 44 through 54.
10:45:10 AM
AT EASE
10:45:25 AM
RECONVENED
10:45:37 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the committee members as to
whether they wanted to go through the bill section by
section.
Senator Olson felt that he wanted to go through the bill by
section in order for his constituents to understand the
legislation.
Senator Dunleavy asked if Mr. Kopp would repeat the section
related to skiers. Mr. Kopp explained that the section
would amend current law dealing with duties and
responsibilities of skiers, prohibiting skiers from moving
uphill on a tramway or using a ski slope or trail while
impaired by alcohol or a controlled substance. He stated
that marijuana was added to that list.
Senator Dunleavy surmised that snowboarders would be
allowed to use marijuana. Mr. Kopp stated that snowboarders
were included in the definition of "skiers."
Senator Olson asked why skiers are singled out rather than
other recreational members of society. Mr. Kopp replied
that the skiing section was included under the "Amusement
and Sports" title. Skiing was considered a "hazardous
sport", because of impact and collisions. It was an attempt
to provide a safe environment for downhill recreation
sports.
Senator Olson wondered why hunters were not included in
that section. Mr. Kopp stated that hunters were included in
the "Misconduct Involving Weapons" statutes.
Vice-Chair Micciche clarified for Senator Olson that the
skier was more about safety on the moving tramway.
Co-Chair MacKinnon reiterated her question to ask if the
committee would like to go through the bill. She stressed
that the addition of the word "marijuana" did not change
current law. It only put the word "marijuana" beside the
word alcohol. Mr. Kopp agreed. He reiterated that marijuana
had always been regulated as a controlled substance. The
bill specified the word, "marijuana" outside of the
definition of "controlled substance."
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there was an additional law
included in the new sections. Mr. Kopp replied that there
were no new laws in the conforming amendments.
Senator Olson would like to understand the overall changes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that Sections 1 through 40, 42,
and 43 were conforming amendments. She looked at Section
44, which began the substantive information about the
initiative.
Mr. Shilling stated that Section 44 was already highlighted
by Mr. Gardner. He felt that the "meat of the bill" started
with Section 50.
10:50:36 AM
Mr. Kopp agreed that Sections 44 through 49 were the
initiative language. Section 51 began with local control.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked how the Sectional Analysis was
drafted.
Mr. Shilling looked at the Sectional Analysis for Version F
(copy on file). He stated that the first page of the
document was an overview, addressing the conforming
amendments. There were three identifiers in the remaining
Sectional Analysis, "conforming", "initiative", and
"substantive."
Vice-Chair Micciche stressed that the public was interested
in knowing that the initiative was covered in the
legislation. He wondered how the initiative was included in
the gill. Mr. Kopp replied that the initiative was covered
in Section 44, beginning with "personal use of marijuana",
referring to the all the provisions under which it was
legal. He announced that Section 45 was initiative language
that dealt with the lawful operation of marijuana related
facilities, which pertained to retail marijuana stores. He
explained that Section 46 dealt with marijuana cultivation
facilities. He stated that Section 47 dealt with marijuana
product manufacturing facilities. He explained that Section
48 dealt with the lawful operation of marijuana testing
facilities. He shared that Section 49 explicitly stated it
was lawful for a person to lease their property to someone
engaging in the activities, and that they were not subject
to seizure or forfeiture under Alaska laws.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to look at Section 50, and
continue with an overview of the bill.
Mr. Shilling looked at Section 50:
AS 17.38.090. Rulemaking.
Directs the marijuana control board to adopt a
regulation that will prohibit a retail marijuana store
from selling more than five grams of marijuana
concentrate per day to a customer.
Mr. Shilling addressed Section 51:
AS 17.38.110(a). Local Control.
Allows for a local governments and established
villages to prohibit the operation of marijuana
cultivation, manufacturing, testing, or retail
facilities through the act of an ordinance.
10:55:10 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche surmised that four ounces could be
allowed in someone's home in a dry village. Mr. Shilling
agreed. He stated that the section allowed for communities
to ban the retail outlet, but not ban the personal
possession limits in the initiative.
Senator Bishop looked at Section 50, and wondered if there
was a provision limiting the amount of marijuana that could
be purchased. Mr. Shilling replied in the negative. He
believed that one could purchase an unlimited amount.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if there was any place that
marijuana was not added to the list of alcohol and
controlled substances in the legislation. Mr. Kopp replied
that that there was an exception in Title 11. The criminal
implications were removed for marijuana.
10:56:49 AM
Mr. Kopp highlighted Section 52.
AS 17.38.200. Misconduct involving marijuana in the
first degree.
A person commits the crime of MIM in the 1st degree,
which is a class A misdemeanor, if they do any of the
following without a license:
- Possesses 25 or more marijuana plants.
- Manufactures more than six marijuana plants.
- Delivers or transports more than one ounce of
usable marijuana or more than six marijuana
plants.
- Gives any amount of marijuana to a person under
21.
- Manufactures a marijuana concentrate using a
volatile or explosive gas.
- Delivers or transports one ounce or less of
usable marijuana for remuneration.
- Delivers or transports up to six immature
plants for remuneration;
A person with a registered marijuana establishment
commits the crime of MIM in the 1st degree if they do
not comply with the license requirements and
knowingly:
- Possesses 25 or more marijuana plants.
- Manufactures more than six marijuana plants.
- Transports more than one ounce of usable
marijuana or more than six marijuana plants.
- Delivers any amount of marijuana to a person
under 21.
- Manufactures a marijuana concentrate using a
volatile or explosive gas.
Senator Hoffman queried the penalty for providing alcohol
to someone under the age of 21. Mr. Kopp replied that it
would be a Class A misdemeanor.
Senator Dunleavy noted that a child could sit near a person
while the person consumes alcohol. He remarked that a child
may become under the influence of marijuana, if a person
smokes marijuana near the child. He wondered if there were
a law prohibiting that behavior. Mr. Kopp responded replied
that the issue had not been regulated.
Senator Dunleavy stressed that the child would be inhaling
second-hand marijuana smoke. He wondered if the issue of
second-hand inhaling had been addressed. Mr. Kopp replied
that it was not included in the bill.
Mr. Shilling shared that the marijuana may be included in
the "endangerment to the child" crime. He deferred to the
bill drafter for more information.
11:00:57 AM
Senator Dunleavy stressed that there may be in issue with
someone under the age of 21 testing positive for marijuana,
because they may be in a home with marijuana smoke. He what
may occur under that scenario. Mr. Kopp responded that
there would be various circumstances that would eventually
be addressed in the legislative process.
Senator Dunleavy stressed that it was a complex issue.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked that the concern may be a part of
the regulatory legislation.
Vice-Chair Micciche felt that the home consumption may be
protected in the home. He agreed that a child would be in
danger in that scenario.
Senator Dunleavy felt that the issue could be addressed
under the ingestion section of the legislation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon agreed to address the issue at a later
date.
11:04:38 AM
AT EASE
11:05:40 AM
RECONVENED
11:06:01 AM
Mr. Kopp shared that "reckless endangerment of a child"
would cover a situation where a minor child were put at
risk of harm.
Mr. Kopp continued to discuss Section 52:
A person with a registered marijuana establishment
commits the crime of MIM in the 1st degree if they do
the following with criminal negligence:
- Allows a person to deliver marijuana to a
person under 21 who is not a medical marijuana
patient 18 years of age or older.
- Allows a person under 21 years to enter and
remain in the licensed premise who is not a
medical marijuana patient 18 years of age or
older.
- Allows a person under 21 years to use marijuana
within the licensed premises.
- Allows a person under 21 to deliver marijuana.
- Delivers marijuana to a person under 21 who is
not a medical marijuana patient 18 years of age
or older.
Mr. Kopp looked at AS 17.38.210:
AS 17.38.210. Misconduct involving marijuana in the
second degree.
A person commits the crime of MIM in the 2nd degree,
which is a class B misdemeanor, if, at the time of the
misconduct, the person:
- Is at least 21 years of age, is not a
registered marijuana establishment and knowingly:
Possesses 6-25 marijuana plants or
possesses; or
Delivers more than one ounce of usable
marijuana in a public place or possesses or
delivers more than six marijuana plants.
- Is a registered marijuana establishment not in
compliance with the registration requirements and
knowingly:
Possesses 6-25 marijuana plants
Delivers or sells any amount of marijuana
- Is not a registered marijuana
establishment and knowingly sells any amount
of marijuana.
Mr. Shilling highlighted AS 17.38.220:
AS 17.38.220. Misconduct involving marijuana in the
third degree.
A person commits MIM in the 3rd degree, which is a
violation, if they:
- Manufacture marijuana in a location where the plants
are in public view, not secure from unauthorized
access, or on property not in possession of the person
or without consent of the property owner.
- Are under 21 and attempts to purchase marijuana with
false identification, or otherwise misrepresents the
person's age.
- Are under 18 and possesses, uses, or displays any
amount of marijuana.
- This section does not apply to a person assisting
enforcement.
11:10:13 AM
Mr. Shilling looked at AS.38.230:
AS 17.38.230. Misconduct involving marijuana in the
fourth degree.
A person commits MIM in the 4th degree, which is a
violation, if they:
- Are over 21 and use any amount of marijuana in a
public place
- Are between 18-20 and use, display, or possess 1
ounce or less of marijuana.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if there was a provision that
addressed a nuisance factor for a residence that was
extremely close to another dwelling, and the smoke that may
carry over to the neighbor's side. Mr. Shilling responded
that there was nothing in the bill related to that issue.
He continued that the Fairbanks Northstar Borough recently
had an ordinance that attempted to define "nuisance."
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the violations of the
misconduct. Mr. Shilling replied that misconduct involving
marijuana in the third degree was a fine of $300. He
furthered that misconduct involving marijuana in the fourth
degree was a fine of $100.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the Department of Law would
address how the fines and penalties relate to the federal
law.
Co-Chair MacKinnon replied that she hoped that the
Department of Law would address that issue at a later
meeting.
Mr. Kopp looked at AS 17.38.240, 250, 260, and 270.
AS 17.38.240. Proof of registration to be exhibited on
demand; penalty.
Requires a licensee to have a copy of their marijuana
license at all times when transporting more than one
ounce of marijuana, and shall present the license on
demand by a peace officer.
AS 17.38.250. Bail forfeiture for certain offenses.
Requires the court to make a bail schedule allowing
defendants to pay the fine for violations without a
court appearance for MIM 3rd (AS 17.38.220) and MIM
4th (AS 17.38.230.)
AS 17.38.260. Restriction on prosecution for certain
persons in connection with a significant adverse
marijuana reaction.
A person may not be prosecuted for various marijuana
misconduct crimes if that person seeks, in good faith,
medical or law enforcement assistance for another
person who is believed to be experiencing a
significant adverse marijuana reaction and the person
remains at the scene until assistance arrives and
cooperates with medical or law enforcement personnel.
AS 17.38.270. Affirmative defense to a prosecution
under AS 17.38.200 - AS 17.38.230; medical use of
marijuana.
In a prosecution for certain MIM crimes, it is an
affirmative defense that the defendant is a patient,
or the primary caregiver for a patient, and:
- At the time of the alleged misconduct, the
person is a medical marijuana cardholder.
- The alleged misconduct complies with
requirements of AS 17.37 and the defendant is the
primary or alternate caregiver.
11:15:01 AM
Mr. Kopp looked at AS 17.38.380:
AS 17.38.280. Court records of violations by minors
confidential.
The court records of a MIM crime or violation are
confidential if the person is under 18 years of age.
Mr. Shilling addressed AS 17.30.290:
AS 17.38.290. Local option.
An established village shall prohibit the operation of
marijuana establishments if a majority of the voters
in the election approve the ban. A ballot to adopt a
local option must contain language substantially
similar to the following: "Shall (name of village)
adopt a local option to prohibit the operation of
marijuana establishments? (yes or no)."
Senator Hoffman wondered if the boroughs or local
communities had the authority to opt out. He queried the
order, if the local government decided to opt in. He
wondered if the community or borough had the authority. Mr.
Shilling replied that initiative gave the municipalities
the ability to opt-out through their city council or
assembly. He furthered that the local option provisions
addressed the parts of Alaska did not have a formal local
government.
Senator Dunleavy asked what would occur in areas of the
state that were in trust status, like Metlakatla. Mr.
Shilling agreed to provide that information.
Senator Olson wondered if a borough could enact a law that
prevailed over the municipality. Mr. Shilling replied that
a borough could opt out of allowing a retail store in the
borough.
Senator Olson asked if the borough's choice would have
precedence over the local village. Mr. Shilling agreed to
provide that information.
Senator Dunleavy agreed that he would like to know if the
local option allowed for the borough to supersede the city
choice. Mr. Kopp replied that the legislation gave local
option authority to the established villages. He shared
that 35 or more residences must sign a petition to put the
option on the ballot.
Senator Hoffman wondered if the definition varied between
the unorganized and organized communities in the state. Mr.
Shilling replied that the definition of "established
village" had statewide application.
11:21:31 AM
Mr. Shilling looked at AS 17.38.300:
AS 17.38.300. Removal of local option.
An established village shall remove a local option if
a majority of the voters vote to remove the option.
The option is repealed effective the first day of the
month following certification of the election results.
A ballot question to remove a local option must at
least contain language similar to the following:
"Shall (name of village) remove the local option
currently in effect, that prohibits the operation of
marijuana establishments, so that there is no longer
any local option in effect? (yes or no)." When issuing
a registration in an area that has removed a local
option, the board shall give priority to an applicant
who was formerly licensed.
AS 17.38.310. Effect of local option on registrations
of prohibition of marijuana establishments.
If a local option is in effect, the board may not
issue, renew, or transfer a registration for a
marijuana establishment located within the perimeter
of the village.
Vice-Chair Micciche felt that it may be necessary to save
the conversation about the local option issue.
11:22:32 AM
Mr. Shilling looked at AS 17.38.320:
AS 17.38.320. Procedure for local option elections.
An election to adopt or remove a local option shall be
conducted as follows:
- The lieutenant governor shall place on a
separate ballot at a special election the content
from a petition that received at least 35 percent
of registered voters within the village.
- The election may not be conducted during the
first 24 months after the local option was
adopted or more than once in a 36-month period.
- Another petition may not be filed until after
the question presented in the first petition has
been voted on. Only one local option question may
be presented in an election.
Mr. Shilling looked at AS 17.38.330:
AS 17.38.330. Establishment of perimeter of
established village.
For purposes of the local option law, the perimeter of
a village is a circle around the village that includes
an area within a five-mile radius of the post office
of the village, or a five-mail radius of another site
selected by the local governing body, or the board, if
the village doesn't have a local governing body. If
the perimeter overlaps with another village's
perimeter, and that other village has not adopted a
local option, then the local option does not apply in
the overlapping area.
Mr. Shilling highlighted AS 17.38.340:
AS 17.38.340. Notice of the results of a local option
election.
If a majority of the voters approve or remove a local
option, the lieutenant governor shall notify the board
of the results immediately following the election, and
the board shall immediately notify the Department of
Law and the Department of Public Safety.
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that the statute pointed
toward "impairment." The statute formerly only said
"alcohol", and it now also included "marijuana."
SB 30 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
11:24:59 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:24 a.m.