NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the
LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
|
SPONSOR: |
Lundstrom |
DATE TYPED: |
2/17/03 |
HB |
411 |
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
New and Transferred Liquor Licenses |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Maloy |
|||||
REVENUE
|
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
Indeterminate |
|
Recurring |
General
Fund |
Responses
Received From
Attorney
General’s Office
Regulation
and Licensing Department, Alcohol and Gaming Division
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House Bill 411 changes
the process through which a liquor license is issued or transferred. Currently, the Director of the Alcohol and
Gaming Division issues or transfers a license after holding a public hearing on
a completed application.
HB411 proposes that
the Director should assemble the application, and verify/certify its completeness,
and thereafter forward the application to the local governing body where the
licensed establishment is to be located.
The bill provides it
shall be the responsibility of the local governing body to post notice of the
pending license application and to hold a public hearing on the question of
approval of the issuance or transfer of the license.
A local governing
body’s decision to disapprove an application must be supported by substantial
evidence, but general health and safety concerns of the community as a whole
and not necessarily the specific location where the license is proposed to be
transferred are sufficient to support a decision to disapprove issuance or
transfer of the liquor license.
If the local
government does not approve issuance of the license, the State Alcohol and
Gaming Director shall not issue a
license.
Significant Issues
1.
This change in process may not be necessary in
light of the considerable voice local governing bodies enjoy under the
current process. Under the existing
process, local governing bodies have the opportunity to present their case, and
if their case has merit, to impact the application for licensure.
Currently,
“local politics” are part of the process, but are balanced by the State Liquor
Director authority and discretion to override the decision of a local governing
body when the decision is not supported by substantial, relevant evidence.
2.
If the licensing and transfer authority is
divided among hundreds of small local governing bodies, it will inevitably
result in inconsistent implementation and regulation. For uniformity and predictability, State administration is likely
preferable.
3.
The bill lacks sufficient due process for
license applicants. The bill does not
provide a mechanism for an applicant to challenge an arbitrary decision made by
the local government. For example, the
amended language in the bill provides that concerns regarding the community’s
general health and safety are sufficient to support a denial.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The amount of impact
to the general fund is not known. If
more applications are denied than are presently issued, fewer license and renewal
fees will be collected.
ADMINISTRATIVE
IMPLICATIONS
A significant portion
of the work currently performed by the State’s Alcohol and Gaming Division
would become the responsibility of local governing bodies. The division’s role would become primarily
ministerial in nature.
SJM/yr:njw