Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/24/1999 03:18 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 69 - ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD
Number 1806
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is HB 69, "An Act relating to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board;
and providing for an effective date." He commented he would
entertain a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS),
Version G, for discussion.
Number 1868
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB
69, labeled version 1-LS0354\G, Ford, 2/19/99, as a work draft.
There being no objection, Version G was before the committee.
Number 1898
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to explain the
proposed CS, as aide to the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee. She stated Version G adds some language about limited
liability companies (LLCs) and limited liability partnerships
(LLPs), referred to as limited liability organizations. This is at
the request of the board [Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC
Board)], because they were having some problems with licensing in
that area. That language is in Sections 1 to 3, 5 to 8, 10, and
11. Section 4, on page 3, makes amendments so that brewpub
licensees are allowed to sell their manufactured beer, not only on
the licensed premises where the beer is made, but at other licensed
premise of that same licensee. Section 9, beginning on page 4,
adds a corkage clause to the statute, which means that you can
bring a bottle of fine wine, for example, into a restaurant and the
restaurant will charge a fee for the stemware and costs. She noted
one of the proposed amendments [G.2] would make this corkage option
subject to the agreement of the licensee. Section 12 extends the
termination date of the ABC Board to June 30, 2002. That is the
only bill section with an immediate effective date, all the other
sections have a July 1, 1999, effective date.
Number 2021
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented she was unaware of any state
besides Utah with a corkage fee, and wondered what the reason is
for inserting the corkage clause into the bill.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded that it is a common practice in most
states but existing Alaska Statute prohibits corkage. He noted it
also a very customary ability throughout the world.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented that in some countries, such as
Japan, you can actually buy a bottle of Scotch [whisky] and leave
it at the restaurant for the every time you come in. He asked, "Is
this what you're envisioning?"
Number 2060
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated having one's own wine bin on a premise
has been known to happen. The chairman said the bill represents a
good deal of what was in the prior legislation from the last
legislature - a significant part of the language, and the limited
liability organizations. He pointed to both LLCs and LLPs in the
definition section. The chairman continued that Section 4 would
probably be the section in question today. For the committee's
reference, he briefly described the different types of alcoholic
beverage licenses: 1) The beverage dispensary license, allowing
the sale of cocktails [hard liquor]. 2) An endorsement, allowed by
the Alaska Statutes, to a beverage dispensary license to be a
brewpub; a brewpub has to be a beverage dispensary licensee to get
an endorsement to be a brewpub. 3) The grandfathered
brewery-restaurant or GBR, in the chairman's words, also known as
taverns. Chairman Rokeberg commented there was a period about four
years ago when the legislature allowed these, and then another bill
he sponsored disallowed these. The chairman stated there were only
four [five] of those licenses grandfathered in Alaska, commenting
one of those had gone out of business and that testimony would be
heard from two others today. He noted one of the problems resolve
around these unusual licenses. 4) The brewery license itself,
which is separate from the brewpub or the grandfathered brewery
restaurant license. He stated he wanted to take up amendment G.1
[labeled 1-LS0354\G.1, Ford, 2/23/99] and hear testimony on that.
The chairman noted there was also another amendment before the
committee [labeled 1-LS0354\G.2, Ford, 2/24/99].
Number 2224
MARY JACKSON, Legislative Assistant, Senator John Torgerson, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward to testify on the proposed G.1
amendment. She stated that the amendment before the committee
relates to package store licenses. Last year there was a bill, SB
138, and many portions of that bill were supported by the ABC
Board, including this amendment which was in SB 138. She noted SB
138 had died in the Senate Finance Standing Committee the previous
session. Ms. Jackson commented Senator Torgerson felt very
strongly about this amendment and she stated, "A little over a year
ago, we had a contact by constituents, and their request was that
they 'piggyback' on some of the economics boom of the cruise ship
business. ... What they wanted to do then was supply bon voyage
gifts of flowers and candy and champagne, and order to do that, of
course, they needed to have the ABC Board get involved. What we
did, as an office, and Senator Torgerson actually personally,
worked with these people. We took it to the ABC Board; the ABC
Board reviewed it, they considered it, and they thought it was
actually a pretty darn good idea, too. They worked with us, and we
in turn, worked with Senate Bill 138 language and inserted the
language that you see before you now as an amendment. I have
reviewed this amendment language and it is the exact same language
as was in old Senate Bill 138. I also spoke, just today ..., with
Director Griffin of the ABC Board; they supported all of these
amendments."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked, "The package store, meaning the liquor
store, can sell to a florist, who then puts the bottle of wine or
champagne in a basket and takes it to the ship?"
MS. JACKSON responded, "That's correct."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked, "Now the florist has to have -- I
mean, according to this, the delivery ... has to be made by
somebody who has undergone the server training."
MS. JACKSON replied that is her understanding too.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked, "If I have gone under the server
training, what am I doing working in a florist shop?"
Number 2335
MS. JACKSON responded, "I believe the only reason you're working
there is to make money, and so you're going to do whatever your
boss tells you to do, and that included delivering to a cruise ship
with a bottle of champagne, and if part of your job is to have this
license so that you can do that. More than likely, though,
honestly, I suspect that it would be the owner of the business that
would provide that function."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated that he thinks it is a great idea, but
he indicated his concerns are with penalties to those without
server licenses, enforcement, et cetera, for those requested to
make deliveries by their florist employers.
MS. JACKSON stated that she did not know the answer to that, but
that she'd assume the responsibility would mainly be on the
employer who directs the employee to do this knowing the employee
does not have the license.
Number 2380
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked, "Where does the responsibility fall if
you have a couple of teenagers ... placing orders to get wine and
champagne and how is that dealt with?"
MS. JACKSON replied that she believes, as before, that the
responsibility falls on the licensee, the owner of the florist
shop, in this case. She noted there could be others, for example
a candy shop that sold flowers and gifts. Ms. Jackson commented
this is really a very interesting proposition to "piggy-back" on
the thriving Kenai Peninsula tourism industry, at least in Homer
and Seward from all kinds of Outside cruise ships.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to Section 6(k), relating to the
delivery of alcoholic beverages, seeking clarification on the term
"responsible adult" and the phrase "the social event as defined by
regulation of the board."
MS. JACKSON replied that she was not sure of the definitions. She
stated that her office had very little to do with the language of
the bill as it was drafted. The bill was drafted by the ABC Board,
they approved the language which works with all of their
regulations. She offered to find the specific information.
Number 2469
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented the director of the ABC Board is online
via teleconference.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated his guess is the first sentence of
Section 6(k) of amendment G.1 ["* Sec. 6. AS 04.11.150 is amended
by adding new subsections to read: ... (k) A package store license
authorizes the licensee to deliver alcoholic beverages between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to a responsible adult at the
location of a wedding or wedding reception or ..."] probably refers
to delivery to someone who is sober.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS commented, "I kind of think the answer to
that is farther down there where it says, 'They must provide
acknowledged receipt of the alcoholic beverage in writing'. When
they acknowledge the receipt, they are the responsible adult at
that point."
Number 2501
MS. JACKSON added, "Mr. Chairman, if I may too make note that much
that is by regulation of the board, so..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED
BY TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 99-15, SIDE B
Number 0017
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were further questions on this
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated one of the provisions in Section
6(k) of the amendment that he did not see in Section 6(j) was the
written acknowledgment of proof of age for the person receiving the
alcoholic beverage delivery. He asked if there is any particular
reason for that.
Number 0044
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he thought it is because of the
different fact pattern: subsection (k) refers to this gift package
being delivered to a vessel and subsection (j) refers to a delivery
being made to an entire wedding reception. He commented he did not
think an underage person would go to an entire ruse to have a
bottle of champagne with flowers delivered to him or her on a ship.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked, "Or to a hotel room, possibly?"
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO confirmed that specific hours, between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., would be set for deliveries to weddings, but no
times set for deliveries to ships.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said perhaps Mr. Griffin can make a distinction
regarding Representative Brice's question.
Number 0105
JIM ELKINS, Elkins Tatsuda Liquor; Board Member, Cabaret Hotel and
Restaurant Retail Association (CHARR), came forward to testify on
the proposed G.1 amendment on behalf of Elkins Tatsuda Liquor in
Ketchikan, Alaska. He commented that he didn't believe CHARR has
developed any opinions on this issue, but he has some. Mr. Elkins
commented he thinks the flow of goods is wrong for security
reasons. The candy, flowers, et cetera should go to the liquor
store and be delivered by the licensee. He thinks there's a lot
more control, that's where the liability for wrongdoing is anyway,
and the staff are already trained. The one problem Mr. Elkins has
with a cruise ship, from a security standpoint regarding delivery
to minors, et cetera: nobody delivers anything past the main
entryway of a cruise ship. He indicated the deliverer has no
control over the delivery past that point. Mr. Elkins commented
the committee might also want consider expanding it beyond floral
and candy, especially when delivering to hotel rooms, to include
crackers, cheeses and meats - something a grocery store might want
to participate in. He also mentioned Christmas baskets.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Elkins if he was recommending that the
chain of delivery on the hotel/cruise ship provisions under
subsection (j) of the amendment would be that the package store
would put this together and make the delivery.
Number 0195
MR. ELKINS agreed, commenting it doesn't mean the florist shop
couldn't sell the package.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to the absence of licensed florists and
said that this would also give the package store the last
opportunity to apply a mark-up. The chairman commented the
committee would be holding HB 69 over and confirmed that concluded
Mr. Elkins' testimony.
MR. ELKINS said he would wait to testify on the bill itself.
Number 0263
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, testified
next via teleconference from Anchorage. The large part of the
change the ABC Board wanted the committee to address was the entire
question of dealing with limited liability companies allowed under
state law several years ago, but not specifically addressed in
Title 4 of the Alaska Statutes dealing with alcoholic beverages.
He said, "This has created a lot of problems for my licensing
staff, some problems for some of our customers, [and] frankly, some
of the licensees. And we've been operating for several years under
an attorney general's opinion that has not been quite as easy ...
to implement as if we had a very clean law, which we think we have
now in this bill, to be able to address this new type of business
organization that is becoming very popular. ... A lot of this bill
deals with that, ... and we can get into details and probably Linda
Kesterson, the assistant AG [attorney general] to the ABC board, is
probably the best person to address that." Mr Griffin continued,
"When the bill first came to us, we did have some concerns about
this new term 'a limited liability organization', but I think Linda
talked to your staff, Mr. Chairman, and we've basically come around
to the feeling that this does, in fact, address the concern that
the board had, and it does provide us a much more workable
framework in which to license different types of limited liability
organizations, whether they be partnerships, or companies or
corporations." Mr. Griffin indicated that concluded his comments
on regarding that part of the legislation.
Number 0344
MR. GRIFFIN stated, "On the corkage issue, I know ... we did
request, because ... no matter who brings the alcohol to the ...
restaurant, we need to hold somebody responsible in the service of
alcoholic beverages, and we felt that that needed to be spelled
out. And I do see in the amendment, you haven't yet adopted it,
but that you do talk about inserting that the licensee has to
provide the permission, and with that, we would hold that person
responsible. So, if they got somebody in a drunken condition, even
if it was with their own wine, we would still hold the licensee
responsible for that action." Mr Griffin further stated, "I did
talk to our chairman, Bob Klein, he thought that as long ... -- he
didn't really see the need for the limitation of the one bottle for
every two persons, as long as you held the licensee ultimately
responsible, so that's just his perspective. I think he was
thinking more of people that might want to just have ... relatively
small portions of several wines in some type of a wine tasting
situation, maybe a different wine with each course of dinner, that
type of thing, and of course if you had enough people in your party
you could do that ....
MR. GRIFFIN continued, "But he's not speaking on behalf of the
board, because we haven't taken this up as a board, but he's
speaking as chairman of the ABC Board. So, I did tell him I'd pass
along his comment on the corkage, for whatever it's worth. ...
From my perspective, I don't really have strong feelings about
limiting how much wine you bring in. I think ultimately, as long
as we can hold the licensee responsible, that's really the bottom
line, and that they ... provide this corkage service with
responsibility and common sense ,and moderation for the consumption
of the wine. And I guess the last thing, just in the original
bill, is the extension of the board to 2002 ... That's very
important under the sunset provision that the board be extended.
I think the board serves a very important purpose to the state, ...
in a state that does have the number of problems with alcohol abuse
that we have, that we do need a regulatory framework to be able to
license and enforce the liquor laws of the state of Alaska." Mr.
Griffin noted that concluded his remarks and stated the board is in
support of the original Version G.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Mr. Griffin had omitted comments on Section
4 with regards to brewpubs.
Number 0493
MR. GRIFFIN said the drafting of this provision is in keeping with
the general thrust of the board's position the previous year with
SB 138. He indicated the committee would hear from one
brewery-restaurant whose situation is not completely addressed by
this section. Mr. Griffin said this provides an incentive to these
brewery-restaurant combinations to get a beverage dispensary
license. Senate Bill 138 contained the provisions allowing beer
manufactured at one location to be sold at another premise licensed
to the same company, group or person; and the requirement that
other beer a brewpub manufactured had to be sold through a
wholesaler, so there are no problems with those provisions. He
commented it is not identical to the previous legislation, in fact
going a little further, but is really in keeping with the board's
desire to try to straighten out this whole brewpub/brewery issue.
It is certainly one way to start trying to settle this once and for
all. The existing law does restrict to having only one
establishment, not allowing them to have other restaurants and
expand their businesses. Mr. Griffin stated the board is in
support of these sections.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS referred to his occupation as a
longshoreman, noting he believed many of the other committee
members also do not have wine cellars. He asked Mr. Griffin if the
ABC Board would have any objection if the committee amended this to
say that people could bring wine or Miller Lite onto the premises.
He indicated his comments were amusing, but it is a serious
question.
Number 0616
MR. GRIFFIN replied he couldn't speak for the board because it has
never taken a position on corkage, but he and his staff think it
isn't a big problem, that corkage is doable. He noted
Representative Sanders does touch on a problem. It's very clear
now that people do not bring alcoholic beverages into bars -
beverage dispensary premises - or into restaurants. Similarly,
people don't open alcohol and consume it on package store premises.
He commented that corkage kind of "fuzzes up the line," noting the
current situation was very clear. Mr. Griffin described the
various types of beverages besides wine that someone might want to
bring into an establishment. He drew the analogy of being on a
slippery slope with the possibility of sliding if people provide
some rain and mud is created. Mr. Griffin noted, "The first person
that provides a little rain might say, 'Why can't I bring my beer?'
and then they'll say, 'Why can't I bring ... my 25-year-old Scotch
... or my 100-year cognac ...." He stated if it just says wine and
the line is drawn there, then that is what the board will enforce,
but does beg these other questions. Those kinds of questions could
arise, and that is the problem with getting away from the current
very definitive bright line.
Number 0729
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted the chairman had indicated the
committee would not be moving the legislation this day and she
questioned whether Mr. Griffin or other board members would be
online the next time, when the committee would take up the audit
comments. She asked if this is an appropriate time to do that.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded that he would like to proceed to the
testimony, noting he thought Mr. Griffin would make himself
available at the committee's will.
Number 0756
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Griffin, "If ... the corkage phrase
were to pass, how many restaurants do you think would allow
customers to bring in their own wine? I mean, it seems to me, in
the food and beverage industry, liquor, obviously, associated with
the menu items, is a big part of the ticket price."
MR. GRIFFIN said that he had no idea, but he could try to obtain a
figure through discussion with his staff and the board.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Griffin how much notice has gone
out to licensees about this proposal to allow corkage.
Number 0811
MR. GRIFFIN said he doesn't know. He said that the people present
from CHARR [Cabaret Hotel and Restaurant Retail Association] and
the Anchorage Restaurant and Beverage Association (ARBA) may be
better at addressing that. He said that he doesn't think there has
been a whole lot of notice, noting the chairman of the ABC Board
might bring it up at ARBA's meeting today
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that CHARR, ARBA, and the "Hotel-Motel
Association" are fully aware of it, had it at their meeting in
Juneau last week, and it has been something the chairman has
discussed with the three associations for the last four years. He
noted it is also very customary throughout the world. Chairman
Rokeberg clarified the trouble is that there are some restaurants
which allow this to happen currently, not realizing they are
breaking a law, because it is customary in a lot of jurisdictions.
Number 0880
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said when she first read Section 9 of the
proposed CS, she made the assumption that regardless of whether or
not the establishment lets the person bring in a bottle, they are
allowed by law to bring it in. She asked, "Is it a discretionary
thing with the establishments?"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied there is an amendment here that makes
sure of that [proposed amendment G.2]. The establishments have a
right, and they charge for the use of the stemware. The corkage is
a fee included in the [restaurant] bill, which means the restaurant
has an incentive to not use its own inventory.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the LB&A [Joint Committee on Legislative
Budget and Audit] audit had suggested the year 2002. The committee
had passed out a bill the previous session giving the board a
one-year extension based on that 1997 audit. The chairman noted if
Mr. Griffin would like to have a further extension, he would not
object, and this is something that could be discussed by the
committee.
Number 0933
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated, "The proposed amendment to allow for
delivery, whether it's to ships or whatever, this is similar to
what I would imagine is Internet sales. Are Internet sales of
alcohol currently regulated in the state of Alaska?"
MR. GRIFFIN replied that he didn't know what Representative Halcro
means by regulated. He said that if someone wants to order wine
from some place out-of-state and they wish to do it for personal
use only, it is permitted as the board interprets it. He noted the
law is silent on this. However, the board does not allow people to
solicit, and that is where the Internet is in kind of a gray area
as to whether an Internet ad is solicitation. Mr. Griffin noted
the board has interpreted that to mean someone has to seek out the
website or chance upon it, and so the board has not looked at that
as a problem. Receiving wine through ordering from a winery or a
beer-of-the-month club gift, for example, is permitted for personal
use only. He indicated delivery would have to be through some
delivery service other than the United States Postal Service.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that he would like to move on and hear from
Chris Anderson.
Number 1026
CHRIS ANDERSON, Co-Owner, Glacier Brewhouse, testified next via
teleconference from Anchorage. He said that he is in support of
these changes as his motive is to open another establishment in the
state of Alaska. He indicated he has been seeking some
modification of the law to allow him to do this for the last three
years because the current statutes prohibit any brewery-restaurant
dual license from owning or operating any [other] beverage
dispensary or restaurant eating place in the state. Mr. Anderson
said he has worked extensively with the CHARR and ARBA, the
wholesalers, and the retailers, to finally reach some kind of
consensus. This legislation will allow them to purchase a beverage
dispensary license and then be able to sell beer to themselves or
to a wholesaler. He said that he felt it was a good compromise and
he'd like to see it move forward. He noted his business is located
in downtown Anchorage. He continued, "I did send you, yesterday,
an amendment to Section 4. The Moose's Tooth is another
brewery-restaurant license holder, and they have a difference in
their license, is [that] their brewery is not on premise. ... The
amendment that I sent you would state that a brewpub license may be
issued to a holder of a grandfathered brewery restaurant license
issued on or before the effective date. So, their intention is to
move along ... in this fashion, so there would really only be one
license in the state that would be of the old style
restaurant-brewery operating, which would be the Sleeping Lady --
Snow Goose." He agreed with an unidentified speaker that the
"Armadillo" [Armadillo Tex-Mex Cafe] in Juneau is also under this
same licensing.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he had not been aware the Armadillo is
also included in this license group. He confirmed Mr. Anderson had
concluded his testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated, "I'm not clear what the amendment
was, is that one that's been incorporated here?"
Number 1198
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied, "No ... Mr. Ford [Legislative Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency] is here, he indicates that we don't need that, but we're
going to have this discussion .... There's further testimony
coming, hopefully, from Mr. Jones from the Moose's Tooth to
describe his circumstances." The chairman indicated it was his
intent for the committee to take the testimony then hear from Mr.
Ford to ensure the proper statutory language is included.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Anderson if it is his objective to
expand his business by opening another premise.
MR. ANDERSON answered that is correct.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "You want to be able to sell the beer you
currently brew in your ... grandfathered brewery restaurant, ...
[or] GBR, into your new beverage dispensary-licensed premise, is
that correct?"
MR. ANDERSON answered, "Well maybe not (indisc.) the brewhouse
would become a beverage dispensary, (indisc.) that brewhouse would
be a brewpub under current statute, which would require it to have
a beverage dispensary license." He noted the next location could
be a restaurant.
Number 1266
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed, "In other words, you'd be able to
start another restaurant across town, ... conceivably, and then be
able to sell the beer you're brewing downtown now at the next
place. That's what your objective is." The chairman questioned
whether that was prohibited under current law.
MR. ANDERSON said that that is correct as a brewpub.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that is the prohibition, "You're going to
change your status under the license law, and then we need these
amendments to allow you to conduct a rational business."
MR. ANDERSON said, "Right, I will turn in my brewery license and my
restaurant/eating place license, purchase a beverage dispensary
license, and re-license under the brewpub statutes, ... which would
be Section 4."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that would leave two, possibly three ,
out of the four or five [GBRs] originally grandfathered in.
Number 1315
MR. ANDERSON noted that was correct and he indicated it seems to
have been the intention of CHARR and ARBA to get rid of those
licenses, leaving the remaining two forms of business.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no further questions of Mr.
Anderson. He indicated he wished the committee to hear Matt Jones'
testimony to help it frame the question before it. The chairman
informed Mr. Jones his letter and amendment have not been
distributed to the committee, but he asked Mr. Jones to describe
his circumstances.
Number 1362
MATT JONES, Co-Owner, Moose's Tooth Pub and Pizzeria, Moose's Tooth
Brewing, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. He
stated that, unlike the other restaurant brewery combinations, they
are not co-located - they are located approximately 2.5 miles
apart. However, if allowed, they would do the same thing as Mr.
Anderson; they would turn in their restaurant and brewery licenses,
and purchase a beverage dispensary license in order to obtain a
brewpub license.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "You have one of the -- what I categorize
as the grandfathered brewery-restaurant licenses, is that correct?"
MR. JONES replied that is correct; they were issued those licenses
in June and July of 1996.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed their situation is unique because they
are not co-located, and they are the only business with these
circumstances in the entire state.
Number 1425
MR. JONES reiterated that their situation is unique because they
are not co-located, but they ask that the amendment be worded in
such a way that they can be entitled to it - that they have the
option to turn in their restaurant brewery license and purchase a
beverage dispensary license in order to qualify for a brewpub
license, so that they are basically on the same playing field as
the other original "GBRs," the chairman referred to.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that concluded Mr. Jones' testimony.
He asked, "Right now under the GBR is there a limit on how much you
can brew?"
MR. JONES replied that under the GBR there is not.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he believed there is a volume limitation
under the beverage dispensary license.
Number 1489
MR. JONES agreed, noting he believes it is 75,000 gallons. Like Mr.
Anderson, they are also interested in expanding. If they are
eligible for this, they would buy the beverage dispensary license,
get a brewpub license, and then open a second location which would
have a restaurant or eating place license. Of the 75,000 gallons
of beer produced, some would go to the original location, some to
the new location, and they would be allowed to sell any extra to a
wholesaler.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "By doing this, you would give up any
right to your free-standing brewery to maintain a brewery license.
Is that how you would understand it?"
MR. JONES replied that is correct; they would give up the brewery
license.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed the Moose's Tooth currently has two
licenses: a brewery license and a restaurant or eating place
license.
MR. JONES noted the group of five GBRs being discussed all actually
had two licenses apiece, a brewery license and a restaurant or
eating place license. He said the Glacier Brewhouse, the "Snow
Goose," the Armadillo, and the "Railway" all own two licenses. Mr.
Jones confirmed for the chairman that the endorsement was on the
restaurant portion.
Number 1592
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if the 75,000 gallon limit is
problematic.
MR. JONES said that is difficult to say. It would probably suffice
for two locations, but could be a burdensome cap if someone wanted
to distribute, depending on the size of someone's distribution
network.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that he feels the statutory intention of the
legislature was to "delimit" the amount of production at brewpubs,
so they are not in direct competition or they are licensed
differently than breweries, which don't have a limit.
MR. JONES said that he believes that is true. He said, "Presently,
it is 75,000 gallons for one, and an infinitive number of barrelage
for the other. Whether that 75,000 is a hindrance to commerce for
a brewpub, I'm not sure. ... (Indisc.) it could go up; I think
right now it would work."
Number 1652
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said the amendment also gives the option of
selling to a wholesaler. He asked, "Does this mean, someday I
might be able to find my favorite Polar Pale Ale at a retail
establishment?"
MR. JONES answered in the affirmative, noting they could sell it to
a wholesaler who could take it to one of the various liquor stores
around town [Anchorage] or who could then sell it to another
restaurant or eating place license.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked how that works with a 75,000 gallon
limit.
MR. JONES replied, "Under both the federal and state regulatory
schemes, we're required to keep track of the beer production.
Basically, we have to file a monthly report to the ATF [Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] and a monthly report to the State
Department of Revenue. And so we know exactly how much beer we
produce, and those records ... are available to the ABC [Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board] or anyone else who would want to question
how much beer we're producing. But, for instance, with the 75,000
gallon cap, we could produce 30 [30,000] gallons for the first
location, another 30 [30,000] gallons for the second location, and
whatever the 'delta' is that remains could go to a wholesaler."
Number 1794
BOB ACREE, Co-Owner, Glacier Brewhouse, testified next via
teleconference from Anchorage. He emphasized he feels it's
important for everyone to understand that none of the "GBRs" can
currently open a second restaurant in the state of Alaska,
indicating that has been the primary driving force behind this for
the last three years on the Glacier Brewhouse's part. He indicated
the other issue is in terms of the limit. He thinks the way this
is currently written, if a business wants to brew more than 75,000
gallons, it could brew an additional 75,000 gallons in a second
location if it obtains a second beverage dispensary brewpub
license.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded that is true, but they would need a
second license. He confirmed Mr. Acree agreed and that concluded
his testimony.
Number 1879
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked Mr. Acree if he literally meant he
couldn't open a restaurant, or if he meant he couldn't open a
restaurant and sell his beer in it.
MR. ACREE replied they are prohibited by law from opening another
restaurant, even one that does not serve alcohol. He stated,
"That's been our big contention, and we've tried every which way to
get this massaged the last three years, and finally we just agreed
to bite the bullet and buy a beverage dispensary license in order
to get all the parties to quit fighting us."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he would like to describe that for the
committee later. He asked Mr. Acree what the approximate cost is
for a beverage dispensary license in the Anchorage area.
Number 1955
MR. ACREE said his guess is about $150,000. He noted others
present in Anchorage seemed to concur.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "You're willing, in order to be able
to grow your business, to invest as much as $150,000 to change just
a licensure, so you can expand because ... the existing law
prohibits you, is that correct?"
MR. ACREE said after three years of fighting they have reluctantly
agreed to do that.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that fighting is just within the
industry.
MR. ACREE replied, "That's my impression, yes."
Number 1996
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "Just for the committee and for the
record let me describe, I believe it was House Bill 372 of the
Nineteenth Legislature, which I was a sponsor, changed a division
in the law in the first session of the Nineteenth Legislature which
allowed these types of restaurants-brewery combinations that were
not brewpubs. But they were a restaurant license? And which were
a lot cheaper than $150,000 or whatever the value was [of a
beverage dispensary license] to exist, and was requested by the
folks at the Snow Goose in Anchorage and some other growing areas
to try to be -- to create the separate, new type of license because
they didn't want to become a brewpub and buy a beverage dispensary
license. They really wanted to do it on a more modest (indisc.)
budget. So, the industry realized after the fact of what had
happened, so the bill that I sponsored came in and actually
repealed that, and in repealing, we grandfathered these other
establishments that had gotten the licenses under that, so we
grandfathered those particular licenses in. So, there was only, I
believe, four or five licenses - one of which now, the Railway
Brewery in Anchorage, has already gone bankrupt. So, there's a
very small number here."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG continued, "And what these gentlemen are actually
offering to do is diminish that number further, because what was
done is in the Senate bill -- in the bill that I sponsored, the
Senate changed the bill in such a manner that it prohibited
multiple licensing ownerships, and also the, as we're hearing here,
the prohibition of doing anything else. It was -- this particular
amendment was offered by Senator Halford in the Senate ... The
intent was to prohibit expansions of other businesses, and to keep
-- this was - those grandfathered licenses were perceived by the
industry as not being on a level playing field 'cause they had not
made the investment in the beverage dispensary license, so this is
what these gentlemen are saying, they're actually saying, 'Uncle,
... you guys win. We will agree to buy the beverage dispensary
license to be on the level playing field, and give up the other
type of license to get away from this other clause now in the
law.'"
Number 2190
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if this meant that because this was
grandfathered in, they couldn't get it back in a couple years if
they changed their minds.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied, "No, they're going to have to give it
up." He asked Mr. Griffin if what he had just described is a valid
description.
MR. GRIFFIN responded, "That is correct. There is specific
language, prohibited financial interest, that if you own a brewery,
besides these ones that are grandfathered in, you cannot have
ownership in another restaurant, and you're right. And in response
to the question ... from Representative Sanders, yes, since these
are kind of grandfathered licenses, if they do make this decision
to convert, there's no going back, they can't go back and go play
under the old rules." He indicated it was probably a good thing to
get away from this special class of grandfathered licenses, have a
clearer set of rules for this operation, and allow the expansion.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if brewpub licenses are alienable; can you
sell a beverage dispensary/brewpub combination?
Number 2305
MR. GRIFFIN replied the chairman had described it correctly,
stating, "Right now you have to have a beverage dispensary license
- you call it an endorsement, it is another kind of license, it's
sort of a secondary license - but a condition of getting a brewpub
license is first being a beverage dispensary licensee ... with the
intent that you want to manufacture some beer at this point for
sale on your premises. And so you (indisc.) the second type of
license for that purpose. This bill does expand it a little bit,
allowing the sale of some of that beer to another..."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected, noting Mr. Griffin had misunderstood
his question. He restated, "If you have a beverage dispensary
license and then you become a brewpub license, under our statutes
now can you sell that business to another party?"
MR. GRIFFIN answered in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "The point being, right now with the
grandfathered licenses, those are not alienable ... you cannot
transfer those, is that correct?"
MR. GRIFFIN commented it is not clear about what would happen if
someone wanted to sell one. Mentioning the "Railway," he commented
the board has not been notified that it has officially declared
bankruptcy.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he had written the bill; they are not
supposed to be able to transfer those things.
Number 2415
MR. GRIFFIN indicated perhaps Mr. Ford could address this. He
noted the board hasn't had to face an attempt to transfer one of
these licenses yet, and he reiterated what would happen is not
clear to him.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented the restaurant portion of the license
could be sold, but not the right to be the combination. He stated,
"Because they had a vested interest, they had given consideration
potentially for the restaurant license, but they were granted by
statute this special right to be able to be a combination."
MR. GRIFFIN replied if that interpretation is correct, that is
probably even another reason why it needs to be fixed.
Number 2482
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "I'm just recalling off the top of my head,
I'm not sure that - Mr. Ford's shaking his head, 'Yes,' right now
- 'cause that was the intention of the sponsor."
MR. GRIFFIN noted the board understood that was Chairman Rokeberg's
intent, adding, "And if that situation were presented to us, we
would do a lot of investigation and..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY
TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 99-16, SIDE A
Number 0021
MIKE FORD, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, came forward to answer
questions from the committee about HB 69.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Ford if he had been shown
communications from the Moose's Tooth Brewing Company and the
Glacier Brewhouse requesting that HB 69 be further amended to
provide for the dual premise situation previously discussed. He
asked Mr. Ford to reassure them or speak to this issue.
MR. FORD testified as far as he had heard discussed, he did not
believe there needs to be any amendment to existing laws if, in
fact, these businesses are giving up the licenses they presently
have because then they no longer fall under the prohibited
financial interest section. They will not have any licenses that
are in conflict under the law. If these businesses are willing to
give up their existing licenses and purchase a beverage dispensary
license, they can do that now. Mr. Ford added that that is what he
heard them say they wanted to do.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed, but added, "It's the multiple premise
issue that's spoken to in the existing draft ...."
Number 0126
MR. FORD confirmed that the draft proposed CS in front of the
committee amends the brewpub license provisions, which would allow
one to brew beer and sell it at some other licensed location one
may have. That is a change to existing law. He noted, "If that's
their concern, then the draft you have, Section 4, will solve that
problem, ... but I believe what they're talking about is some
additional element that they're looking for that would allow them
to dispose of their existing licenses to use these provisions."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified that the Moose's Tooth is concerned
because they are not co-located, their circumstance are rather
unique. Apparently, the Moose's Tooth has the brewery license and
the restaurant license with the "endorsement," so they are
concerned that they may not be able to make the conversion because
of the other clause prohibiting the multiple ownership.
Number 0214
MR. FORD advised that multiple ownership is only prohibited in
certain combinations, and that it is permissible to have a brewpub
license and a restaurant or eating place license.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about a brewery license, commenting he
thinks that is the problem.
MR. FORD replied a brewpub is kind of a brewery. He added, "So if
that's the license they want -- if they can live with this limit of
75,000 gallons -- I can't see a problem for them."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Jones was still there.
Number 0255
MATT JONES of the Moose's Tooth, stated, "I think the confusion
here is that if we give up our restaurant and brewery license ...
and try to become a brewpub, the brewpub language states that you
can only sell beer manufactured on premises licensed under the
beverage dispensary license. So, in our particular case, the
beverage dispensary license has to fall both on the eating side of
our establishment and on the brewery side, even though they're
three miles apart." He clarified that all of the other
grandfathered brewery restaurants are, for all intents and
purposes, located in the same building; however, the Moose's Tooth
is not, and the law specifically states that the beer has to be
manufactured on the premises. He noted as long as they could be
considered one premises, it is not a problem, and he guesses that
is the reassurance they are looking for.
MR. FORD suggested that was perhaps a good question for Mr.
Griffin, noting he thinks the ABC Board will determine what their
actual premises are under that license. Mr. Ford stated he
believes in the brewpub situation it is required to be in the same
building.
Number 0368
MR. JONES agreed, and reiterated that this is the reason the
Moose's Tooth is asking to be given the same opportunity as the
other grandfathered brewery restaurant licenses. He emphasized
that, even if the ABC Board gives its okay, they would like to
know, come different administrations or future change of law, that
their license will be viable ten years from now. He read their
proposed amendment [to AS 04.11.135(a)], "A brewpub license may be
issued to the holder of a grandfathered brewery restaurant issued
on or before the effective date of this Act." Mr. Jones indicated
this would make all five of the original grandfathered brewery
restaurants eligible for a brewpub license, whether or not they
decided to exercise that option, and it would eliminate the issue
of co-location.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned why the Moose's Tooth applied for the
combination license initially when they were operating as a brewery
and a restaurant.
MR. JONES deferred the question to Mr. Griffin.
Number 0464
MR. GRIFFIN responded that the Moose's Tooth is probably the only
true brewery-restaurant, with a brewery on one side of town and a
restaurant on the other. The other restaurants really are brewpubs
because of their co-location, their combination. However, because
the law did not allow these other restaurants to form brewpubs with
just restaurant/eating place licenses, they found they could get to
the same place by becoming breweries and restaurants, which was not
a prohibited combination at the time. This is the path the Moose's
Tooth also followed, but they truly are a brewery-restaurant
combination, even though their brewery operation is small and
apparently would fall underneath the 75,000-gallon cap envisioned
for brewpubs. Mr. Griffin added that at that time having a brewery
and a restaurant was a very permissible combination, and it was
even possible to open up additional restaurants. He noted this was
before the stricter prohibited financial interest provision was
enacted by the Halford amendment
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed that, from a drafting standpoint, it would
be simplest to just repeal the Senate's amendment, indicating,
however, there other factors are involved. Chairman Rokeberg
commented he thought Mr. Jones wants an exception here, and,
indicating the risk of special legislation, the chairman questioned
Mr. Ford whether something could be drafted that would provide for
Mr. Jones' circumstances.
Number 0596
MR. FORD referred the question to Mr. Griffin, and asked, "If
someone applied for a brewpub license, and they came to you and
said, 'I have ... a facility at location X, and I want to brew beer
under the brewpub license and sell it at location Y, which is two
miles away,' what would you say?"
MR. GRIFFIN responded that the ABC Board would say it is not
allowed because AS 04.11.135(a) specifies: "(a) A brewpub license
authorizes the holder of a beverage dispensary license to (1)
manufacture on premises licensed under the beverage dispensary
license not more than 75,000 gallons of beer in a calendar year."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that was a brewpub, and he asked why
someone who owns a brewery couldn't sell beer on a retail basis if
they own a restaurant license.
Number 0660
MR. GRIFFIN referred to the prohibited financial interest portion
of the law, which he paraphrases to say, "'You can't be in the
manufacturing business and in the retail business.'". The
manufacturing being a brewery in this case, not a brewpub, and the
retail business being a beverage dispensary licensee or a
restaurant/eating place licensee. Mr. Griffin noted this is in AS
04.11.450(b), which reads:
(b) A person who is a representative or owner of a
wholesale business, brewery, winery, bottling works, or
distillery may not be issued, solely or together with
others, a beverage dispensary license, a restaurant or
eating place license, or package store license. A holder
of a beverage dispensary license may be issued a brewpub
license, subject to the provisions of AS 04.11.135 . The
prohibition against issuance of a restaurant or eating
place license imposed under this subsection does not
apply to a restaurant or eating place license issued on
or before October 1, 1996 or a restaurant or eating place
license issued under an application for a restaurant or
eating place license approved on or before October 1,
1996.
MR. GRIFFIN commented that the "a restaurant or eating place
license" language was inserted by Senator Halford. Mr. Griffin
stated, "Basically, it's saying if you're in the business of making
product you cannot be on the retail end of it. It goes back to the
old 'Tidehouse (ph) Laws', is what they were called, when the
brewery owned the saloons and they'd make a lot of beer, ... and
there was a great incentive to sell as much as they could, and as
we went through Prohibition (indisc.) seemed to be a bad thing, so
that's sort of the brief history of that. ... And then there's
language further on in (b) which provides for this grandfathering,
because at the time, because the restaurant/eating place license
was not ... among this list of retail licenses - it was just the
beverage dispensary and package store - they closed that loophole,
if you will - that's probably the way Senator Halford looks at it.
And the one exception that still remains of combining some kind of
manufacturing, albeit at a lower level, and retail is the brewpub
license."
Number 0786
MR. GRIFFIN continued, "We kind of crossed this bridge a little bit
when we allowed the brewpub license to come into being, where we
allow someone to make a little beer and sell it on their premises
if they had a beverage dispensary license. These four or five
licensees we are talking about found another way to do that as
well, because owning a brewery and owning a restaurant at the same
time was permissible until the law was changed. That's why we're
at where we're at, and so now we're looking at needing to change
the brewpub statute, and almost call what really is a brewery -
because it stands alone, it's not associated with a restaurant or
a bar - and call that a brewpub ... and it really isn't that." Mr.
Griffin indicated the entity in question is a small microbrewery -
owned by the Moose's Tooth and licensed as a brewery to Moose's
Tooth Brewing.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Ford cared to comment.
Number 0855
MR. FORD indicated he would agree that allowing a brewpub to have
a brewing facility that is not in the same building is, in fact,
what was intended to be prohibited by the "prohibited financial
interest" portion of the law. He indicated this section of law
prohibited breweries from holding restaurant licenses, but he said
there would be a difference because there is a limit on manufacture
under a brewpub license. A brewpub is a brewery, but it happens to
be a brewery in a restaurant. So, it is a combination of a kind
that was prohibited by a law, it's just that now there is a
different kind of license. Mr. Ford noted what he was trying to
get at, as far as whether that could be done, is that there is a
definition of "licensed premise". "Licensed premise" just means
that designated portion of a building one uses to operate the
license. He commented he could not see how this definition would
prohibit what he had suggested, although he said it is possible to
interpret it that way. It is possible the legislature could amend
the brewpub license to specifically provide for that: saying a
brewery operation does not have to be in the same building - that
the licensed premise could be building A and building B. Mr. Ford
indicated that returned them to where they had started: a
mini-brewery having a restaurant license.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented it opened up a Pandora's Box.
Number 0960
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS stated to Mr. Griffin it has become very
apparent to him during this hearing that these proposed amendments
and changes are definitely going to endanger the extension of the
ABC Board. He questioned whether Mr. Griffin, in light of this,
would be in favor of returning to the original bill, allowing these
issues to be taken up in separate legislation.
MR. GRIFFIN agreed, noting he would have no problem trying to take
out those parts deemed controversial. He indicated he was in favor
of returning to the original Version G proposed CS with the
deletion of the brewpub/brewery part, but leaving in, for example,
the limited liability organization section. He stated, "I
recognize the fact that ... because this is a bill that the
Administration wants, and obviously the ABC Boards want
(indisc.--talked over) it becomes a bit of a magnet for ... any
kind of alcoholic (indisc.--talked over) pass. ... I would be
happy to work further on this in a separate bill, but I think the
people (indisc.) really want this, the people that have ...
financial stake in this, would like to keep as close to our
(indisc.) as possible, just because it ... improve[s] their chances
of passing." Mr. Griffin commented on the legislative "give and
take," and, noting Representative Sanders' greater understanding in
that area, Mr. Griffin commented he defers to and has to agree with
the Representative's comments.
Number 1080
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated, "To me, ... it seems a little bit
odd. Here, on one hand, we're talking about a ... corkage
provision which would allow somebody to bring a bottle of wine into
a restaurant, but yet here we won't let a licensed operator bring
their own beverages into their facility. ... With Mr. Ford's
interpretation of the description of 'licensed premise,' are you
telling me that there is no administrative action or waiver that
you could grant Mr. Jones, especially considering that this is a
very unique situation?"
Number 1133
MR. GRIFFIN stated he would feel uncomfortable doing that, noting
he would like it to be spelled out as clearly as possible. He
observed the board is subject to legislative audit. Mentioning
another sunset audit in three or four years, Mr. Griffin commented
he would not want to be "called on the carpet" for having read too
much into a statute, or done something administratively that is
not, in his mind, clearly spelled out by the statute. He noted
those in the executive branch are often criticized for trying to
read more into statute than was intended, or than is there. He
expressed his willingness to work with Mr. Ford to reach agreement
and ensure nothing is done beyond what the legislature intended;
however, he thinks it is fairly clear the law intends for a brewpub
to be connected to the operation of a beverage dispensary license.
He referred again to the statutory language, paraphrasing, "It says
it right there, you're manufacturing on premises licensed under the
beverage dispensary license."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO assured Mr. Griffin he appreciated his
conservative approach, but, since Mr. Jones' operation is the
"exception versus the rule," and given Mr. Ford's interpretation of
licensed premise, he feels they should make accommodations in the
interest of commerce.
MR. GRIFFIN deferred to Linda Kesterson, the assistant attorney
general for the ABC Board.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee would take testimony from
another witness in Anchorage before hearing from Ms. Kesterson.
Number 1258
ANNE WILKAS testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
indicated she did some work for the Moose's Tooth as an attorney
and would not take up the committee's time. She stated, "I want to
see the Moose's Tooth ... get legislated in because if there's ever
a question of legislative intent, I think it needs to be very clear
that the Moose's Tooth has the approval of the legislature, not
just the executive branch, and I think, as an attorney, and having
had to go research the legislative record, that that is important."
Ms. Wilkas noted that was all she really wanted to add.
Number 1305
LINDA KESTERSON, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. She referred to the definition
of a premise and directed the committee's attention to AS
04.11.430. In AS 04.11.430 a license is to be issued to a specific
location, and that has always meant one physical location. She
commented that it is simply not tenable to say the board could
interpret the brewpub legislation, "where it says 'on premises
licensed to the beverage dispensary license,'" to include a
separate physical location. That is not anything the board has
ever done, she said, and her reading of AS 04.11.430 is that the
board cannot say that a licensed premise can include more than one
physical location. Ms. Kesterson stated that if the Moose's Tooth
is going to get some contingent protection, as when it was
grandfathered in, it is going to need some specific exception. The
Moose's Tooth will not fit within the current Section 4 of the
proposed amendment [G.2].
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted it was getting late. He indicated he hoped
Mr. Ford, Ms. Kesterson, and his office could work together to find
a solution meeting the needs of the Moose's Tooth. The chairman
questioned whether anyone else wished to testify this day.
Number 1394
MR. JONES of the Moose's Tooth responded to a previous question
regarding why the brewery and the restaurant had been built in
different locations. Mr. Jones stated it was always their
intention to open a restaurant with a brewery, and open multiple
satellite locations. However, the primary reason they located in
disparate places is because distribution out of a brewery located
anywhere but in an industrial zone is prohibited under Anchorage
municipal code. If the brewery was built downtown and they wanted
to do significant distribution, there would have been problems with
the municipality. "Incidental distribution" is allowed, but is not
clearly defined. Mr. Jones stated the Moose's Tooth was operating
under the rules existing at that time, although he thinks there is
now some flexibility allowed regarding incidental distribution. He
commented, "That's why we located in different places, if we had
built a restaurant and a brewery right next door to each other, we
would have had a different level of government telling us that we
couldn't distribute."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG assured Mr. Jones the purpose of the House Labor
and Commerce Standing Committee is to ensure that the commerce of
the state runs smoothly. He noted that was one of the committee's
objectives with the legislation.
Number 1471
MR. JONES added, "Like Mr. Anderson, we're in a position, finally,
where we can expand. We employ about 62 people between the
restaurant and the brewery, and we started that on a shoestring
budget. ... I think at a time when the state is looking at
dwindling incomes, we should probably try and figure out -- without
annoying or causing the loss of revenue to other people with
different licenses -- we should look at how we can ... allow
business such as ours to prosper and to ... grow the jobs, so to
speak."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed fully, noting that was why he introduced
the legislation with these amendments. The chairman announced HB
69 would be held over for further public testimony and
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|