CSHB 217(JUD)-TOURISM DISCLOSURES AND NOTICES  2:14:27 PM CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of CSHB 217(JUD). REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES, sponsor of HB 217, said her staff member would present the bill. 2:14:52 PM JAMES WALDO, staff for Representative Holmes, explained that HB 217 attempts to correct an error that occurred in ballot 2 language. It breaks down into three parts; the first part adds some disclosure requirements that were not in the initiative language. Second it changes one disclosure requirement that was in the initiative language and third, it applies those requirements to shore side retailers in addition to onboard tour sales. At the very end, it increases penalties for violators of this law. He explained that section 2 adds the new disclosure requirement by requiring any sale of an onboard tour to be cast in the proper light. It lets people know that there is a retail/wholesale relationship between the cruise line and the shoreside tour vendor so they know some of the money they are paying for the ticket is actually staying with the cruise line. Next he said it requires the cruise lines to inform passengers that there are other options at a port of call that would have different features and perhaps different prices - basically allowing them to understand that there is a whole world of other options out there other than just the five that might be promoted on the ship. So that they can seek out those other options, he said, it next requires the cruise line to provide the contact information at the future port of call which will have all of the contact information in a listing of all the tour vendors. MR. WALDO explained it also changes disclosure of the exact commission rate, which is what that language in the initiative said, to disclosure if the commission is over a 20 percent threshold. The idea behind this is to basically let the consumer know he is paying a commission over a certain level. Beyond those changes, he said, it applies this language to shore side retailers, as well - like Diamonds International that pays a great deal of money to be advertised on the ships. He explained that many Alaskan businesses aren't advertised on the ships. This issue was left out of the ballot measure. Finally, Mr. Waldo said, the bill corrects the penalty provision, because the initiative classified it as an unfair trade practice, but capped the maximum penalty at $100. However, the usual penalty for an unfair trade practice is $1,000- $25,000. 2:20:18 PM TIM MCDONNELL, Temsco Helicopters, Juneau AK, supported HB 217. BOB JANES, Owner, Gastineau Guiding, Juneau AK, supported HB 217. JEREMY KEIZER, President, Alaska Travel Industry Association Juneau Chapter, supported HB 217. He said that while ATIA wanted no disclosure requirements, this bill strikes a mutually beneficial arrangement with the initiative sponsors and the stakeholders and it is as close to the top floor as they could get. 2:22:39 PM HOLLY BURKHOLDER, Juneau AK, supported HB 217. 2:23:00 PM KAREN HESS, Chilkat River Adventures, Haines AK, supported HB 217. STEVE HITES, Skagway Streetcar Company, said HB 217 is the lesser of two evils so he supported passing it. He said the relationship between the cruise line and the tour operator is a simple retail wholesale one. He strongly felt that any reference in section (b) to commission or percentage should be struck from this bill. He said no other retail store in America has to reveal its mark up or even have it assumed. He expressed his sentiment thus: To have an arbitrary 20 percent figure inserted in the bill there is absolutely incorrect. It's wrong. Private enterprise is exactly that. It is private and to disclose inaccurately my private business agreements with my customer puts me at a disadvantage. This disclosure discriminates against one retail business - the cruise line shore excursion sales desk. And it discriminates against the local Alaska wholesale businesses that sell shore excursions to the cruise lines. It is unconstitutional and violates our rights.... CHAIR FRENCH thanked him for his good comments. He asked the sponsor about language on page 1, line 9 and page 2, line 9 that referenced oral disclosures to individuals buying excursions onboard the cruise ships. He wanted to hear about the debate that occurred and the position of the initiative sponsor with deleting this disclosure. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES responded that this change was made in the House Judiciary Committee. The discussion was that originally disclosure was required both orally and in writing on the theory that these packages were presented by a person who would also be there to explain it. But then it was explained that on a lot of occasions this information is actually slipped under the passengers doors or left on a table in their cabins. So it seems to require oral disclosure was not appropriate. They decided that by requiring all disclosures to be made in writing would make it easier to prove whether it was or wasn't happening anyway. CHAIR FRENCH asked the position of the initiative sponsors. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES replied that they had not voiced any objections to her about this. One of them testified in favor of the bill as it stands now and the other sponsor wrote a letter of support. 2:29:26 PM SENATOR McGUIRE moved to report CSHB 217(JUD), version N, from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note(s). There were no objections and it was so ordered.