HB 212 - LOCAL OPTION BOUNDARIES FOR VILLAGES Number 570 CHAIRMAN IVAN indicated that the committee would next consider HB 212, "An Act relating to determination of an established village for purposes of regulating the sale, use, and possession of alcoholic beverages in the unorganized borough; and providing for an effective date." Number 609 REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA came forward to testify on HB 212 as sponsor of this legislation. He stated that villages have a local option law where they are allowed to opt out of selling alcohol in their communities. A vote is taken to do so. A five mile radius from the center of the village is mapped out and this area would be the area opted out of. No alcohol would be allowed in this radius. He understood that there were three different levels involved as to whether alcohol would not be sold or whether to have no alcohol whatsoever. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA continued that a problem came up in the village of Gulkana which is on the road system. Previously, all of the villages that have opted out have not been on the road system. This five mile radius did not touch any other places. When they voted to opt out, the five mile radius touched a number of other places like Gakona Junction and restaurants that are already established, etc. The village did not intend to take these other entities in. The way the law is written, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board's (ABC) hands are tied. Also, people outside the village of Gulkana and inside the five mile radius didn't have a vote on the issue either. Only the people inside the village did. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated that the ABC Board needs more leeway to make some common sense decisions on where these boundaries are. In paragraph (c), there is language which allows the board to adjust this five mile radius, especially in situations where there is a road system. This gives the board more flexibility. He believed this was supported by the villages of Gulkana and Gakona. There has been some discussion about Copper Center voting to go dry. This would also have complications because of the road system. He continued that this legislation gave the board a common sense approach to draw these lines as necessary. Number 780 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if the purpose of a village is to go dry and avoid the related problems of alcohol use, what happens in the case of a nearby community which does provide alcohol. He used Fort Yukon as an example. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noted that when they talk about communities on the road system five miles doesn't mean that much. With this five mile radius someone could go down the road seven miles to Glennallen to another liquor store. This policy does work well out in the bush. This keeps someone from setting up an establishment to sell alcohol right outside a village, but this same concept doesn't work on a community connected to a road system. Number 889 ALAN LEMASTER testified via teleconference from Gakona on HB 212. He applauded this legislation and said it was needed. Otherwise nothing would be accomplished. He noted that if the five mile radius provision stood in the legislation, then everyone within the five mile radius should have the opportunity to vote. He stated that he held a license in this area and said he has seen no increase in sales since it's gone into effect. In Gakona, there have been 20 to 22 people who have died in the last few years due to alcohol related incidents. He said this is a sad thing to see. Assuming this bill was passed, he asked Representative Kubina if another vote would be taken in Gakona since the people within the five mile radius didn't get to vote. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated he wasn't sure about this and he hasn't asked the ABC Board. He emphasized that the people in Gakona and the Copper Valley area are very supportive of the village and their objectives. This in no way would try to hinder them from those purposes. Number 1057 LINDA O'BANNON, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, testified via teleconference from Anchorage on HB 212. She pointed out that the five mile perimeter only affects sales of alcohol. Possession and importation are limited to the actual village boundary. The perimeter concept is not defined currently in statute but in regulation. The boundaries were drawn in this particular election in Gulkana and Gakona such that Gakona was excluded from the five mile radius. The current licensees are still able to hold onto their licenses. The board will adopt the boundaries suggested by staff so she didn't think there was a need for another election in this situation since it doesn't affect the current licensees. If this legislation was to pass, along with it's resulting statute, this would override the regulation. The perimeter definition would be changed by statute. The board is considering an amendment to the regulation. Number 1219 JUDY SHELTON testified via teleconference from Gakona on HB 212. She stated she was in favor of this legislation, but she was disappointed in the way this whole issue came about. She thought that a little forethought could avoid added expense. She noted that she doesn't drink, but she thought that everyone involved with regulation and statute have the right to vote. Number 1321 DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, testified via teleconference from Anchorage on HB 212. The board hasn't taken a formal position, but have had discussions in principal on HB 212. He said he was sure the board would be supportive of this effort given the problems with the Gakona situation. The local option provisions, as they exist currently, were probably drawn up to deal with villages that are not on the road system. These villages are more compact which has meant that the local option provisions have worked fairly well. Alaska is entering a new era where communities on the road systems are approving local options. This presents a whole host of challenges in terms of enforcement. MR. GRIFFIN added that there were some concerns about how someone would apply the technic provided for in statute, to do so fairly and reasonably. HB 212 is designed to try and correct this by giving the ABC Board more flexibility in how votes are structured. He mentioned that the ABC Board is just part of a collaborative effort in this whole issue. If there's an unincorporated area in an unorganized borough of the Division of Elections, discussions take place between this division and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs. If this were to pass, he saw this type of collaboration continuing in order to make sure that an area would qualify before they get into the election process, along with some of these other issues. This legislation gives the board flexibility to look at each situation on a case by case basis, apply some general goals and then use common sense. Number 1492 CHAIRMAN IVAN asked about the current regulations controlling the local option law and wondered if the elections regarding the same are held within the boundaries of the five mile radius. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA responded that he believed this was how they did it in this last election. Number 1552 MR. GRIFFIN noted that the Division of Elections looked at just the village for purposes of voting in the local option election and not the five mile perimeter around the village. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA added that the area affected was greater than the village for purposes of sale, manufacturing and personal use of alcohol. There was a larger area of people who were not allowed to vote. Number 1588 MS. O'BANNON offered that the Division of Election is required on these local option elections to have pre-clearance by the U.S. Department of Justice. There are always issues of not diluting the vote. In general, they believe that everyone should get to vote who would be affected by the ban on importation or possession particularly. They limited the eligible voters of this election to the boundaries of the village of Gakona. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA added that those people who did not get to vote within the radius feel like they were disenfranchised. In fact, it seems they would have an argument to challenge this election because they did not get to vote. With this statute, it makes it easier for a village to deal with this themselves because it won't automatically take in such a large area. This means they can take care of their own issues themselves without the surrounding areas needing to concur. Number 1703 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved and asked unanimous consent to move HB 212 out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note. Hearing no objection, HB 212 was moved out of the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee.