HOUSE BILL NO. 301 "An Act relating to the renewal and transfer of ownership of a beverage dispensary license or restaurant or eating place license." 9:22:23 AM Co-Chair Foster relayed that the bill was last heard in committee on February 20, 2018. Representative Wilson had asked Legislative Legal Services whether the grandfathering provision only applied to the businesses included in the bill. She related that the attorneys stated that the bill would allow other businesses to be grandfathered in the future. REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, SPONSOR, was not aware of the interpretation. He understood that the bill only applied to the 34 businesses that operated before the 1985 change in the law. Representative Wilson favored the bill. She indicated that she wanted to bring the broader interpretation to his attention. She clarified that the bill did not only grandfather in the specified businesses; if the laws changed in the future, grandfathering could apply. Under current law the bill only applied to the 34 businesses addressed, but if the alcohol laws were rewritten the bill would pertain to any businesses in a similar situation. Representative Wool could not speak to a future rewrite of the law and how it would impact currently operating businesses. He hoped that a future rewrite would include grandfathering clauses for businesses that abided by the law. He thought HB 301 was specific to the time when the room requirement changed. He thought Ms. McConnell [Erika McConnell, Director, ABC Board] could provide additional information. Representative Wilson wanted the legislature to be cognizant of the effects on businesses when laws were changed. Representative Wool thought that Representative Wilson spoke in the "hypothetical". He remembered that when the drinking age was changed businesses were not grandfathered in and thought the matter was relative. Representative Wilson asked if the laws were rewritten whether the grandfathering clause would apply to businesses in a similar situation in the future. ERIKA MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, ABC BOARD (via teleconference), replied that she agreed with the interpretation. She believed it was a positive outcome. She pointed to page 4, lines 14 through 23 of the draft Committee Substitute (CS) and read from the following: (2) the renewal or transfer of ownership of a beverage dispensary or restaurant or eating place license issued under (1) of this subsection if the (A) holder of the license operates a hotel, motel, resort, or similar business relating to the tourist trade that (i) has a dining facility on the licensed premises or kitchen facilities in a majority of its rental rooms; and (ii) maintains at least the minimum number of rental rooms that the hotel, motel, resort, or similar business had at the time of initial licensure or that were required at the time of initial licensure; or Ms. McConnell explained that the language was important and protected businesses in communities that grew overtime and was now required to have more rooms to obtain the license. The language in the bill stated that the business only had to maintain the number of rooms that were required at the time of initial licensure. Representative Wilson wanted to protect people's investments and was merely informing the committee of the broader interpretation of the bill. Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Knopp in the audience. 9:29:33 AM Vice-Chair Gara read the previously published zero fiscal note, FN1 (CED) from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED) allocated to the Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office that did not anticipate fiscal impact from this legislation. Representative Kawasaki commented that the committee had been working with Title 4 and how AMCO worked. He was contacted by the Riverfront Theatre, Fairbanks Drama Association and relayed that the theatre was open for 54 hours and paid $2,475. for the license, secured the signature of the licensees 66 times, and filed 435 pages of paper work for the 54 hours. He deduced that on a good night they made $200 and the ABC fees alone were $70. He acknowledged that the bill was not the vehicle to address the issue and just wanted to make the statement on record. He believed the costs and paperwork were a big bureaucratic burden for a small non-profit organization. 9:31:48 AM Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 301(FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 301(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one previously published zero fiscal note: FN1(CED). 9:32:34 AM AT EASE 9:33:33 AM RECONVENED hb38 HOUSE BILL NO. 38 "An Act relating to the calculation and payment of workers' compensation benefits in the case of permanent partial impairment; relating to the calculation and payment of workers' compensation death benefits payable to a child of an employee where there is no surviving spouse; relating to the calculation and payment of workers' compensation death benefits for an employee without a surviving spouse or child; relating to notice of workers' compensation death benefits; and providing for an effective date." 9:33:37 AM Co-Chair Foster relayed that HB 38 was previously heard in committee on February 15, 2018. MEGAN HOLLAND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, 9:34:49 AM MARIE MARX, DIRECTOR, WORKER'S COMPENSATION DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, reviewed the new zero fiscal note by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD). She indicated that the bill would not change the way the division administers workers compensation; therefore, there is no direct fiscal impact to the department. Representative Wilson was assuming the other fiscal notes were no longer applicable. Ms. Marx relayed that there were two other fiscal notes: One from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and one from the Department of Administration (DOA). She elaborated that the benefits and costs associated with the legislation were paid for by insurance companies and self-insured employers; the state was self-insured. Through DOA's Division of Risk Management the costs would be passed on to state agencies through increased personal services benefits costs including future year budget salary and benefit adjustments. Representative Wilson was concerned, and she was working diligently on the issue. She believed that a "different type of punishment" other than financial should apply if the state had an employer that ignored safety to the point that someone was permanently injured or killed. She wanted to find a solution that did not "break the system." Vice-Chair Gara shared a similar concerned as Representative Wilson. Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 38(FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Pruitt OBJECTED. Representative Pruitt spoke to his objection. He believed that the bill compensated "beyond the dependents" of the injured worker. He suggested that the state already had such high costs and altered the longstanding "concept" of workers compensation and how it worked; compensate the injured worker and their dependents and was now including the estate. Vice-Chair Gara relayed a story from personal work experience. He thought the level of compensation was so low it was almost insulting. He believed that the guilty party should pay for injury or death. He supported the bill. 9:41:09 AM Representative Pruitt was concerned that the negligent party was not paying into the system. He agreed that there was no way to put a price on a life. He thought the fault of the bill was that it did not hold the person that was negligent responsible; the system paid for the injury or loss. He asserted that that was Representative Wilson's point. He emphasized that the legislation did not address the concern properly. Representative Wilson wondered whether changing the law would inhibit a parent or someone "outside the system" from suing the responsible party. 9:44:00 AM Vice-Chair Gara responded to Representative Wilson' question. He explained that the worker's comp system was exclusive, and the benefit was solely tied to the worker. The parent currently lacked any recourse in court. He responded to Representative Pruitt's remarks and indicated that if an employer negligently killed a worker in an accident the parent was not entitled to anything if the employee had no spouse or children. The bill made the employer responsible under the workers' compensation system and corrected the issue. Co-Chair Seaton voiced that the issues were conflated in the committee process. He understood that one issue was to hold the grossly negligent party responsible, which was not the subject of the bill. The current legislation dealt with the workers' comp insurance and who was covered. He summarized that if an 18-year-old lost his life on the job and had no dependents or spouse the parents would not receive compensation and that scenario was the issue. He offered that Worker's Compensation covered funeral costs. He hoped the two issues could be separated. He thought the other problems could be solved in future legislation. Representative Pruitt MAINTAINED OBJECTION. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton OPPOSED: Wilson, Pruitt, Thomson, Tilton Representative Guttenberg was absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (6/4). CSHB 38(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with an "amend" recommendation and with a new zero fiscal note by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, a new fiscal impact note by the Office of the Governor, and a new fiscal impact note by Department of Administration. 9:47:14 AM AT EASE 9:49:08 AM RECONVENED