You may recall our earlier discussions about a bill introduced to the Montana Legislature in January which would create a new “boutique” beer/wine shop license category. The previous bill would have allowed true bottle shops, but restricted their hours to 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. It did, however, allow such shops to have up to 12 tasting events.
When the bill came up for its hearing before the House Business and Labor Committee, the sponsor, Christy Clark, asked the committee to table the bill without providing any explanation, or responding to our request for comment.
It appears we now have our explanation.
Representative Clark is working on a new bill, LC 2078, which would eliminate the current language restricting off-premise licenses to bonafide grocery stores and pharmacies.*
A “bona fide” grocery story is one with $3,000 worth of at least three different types of items in each of these food groups: meats, vegetables, fruits, bakery items, dairy products, and household supplies. While it is not difficult to hit the $3,000 mark, stocking, inventorying and selling meats, fruits, vegetables, etc. is far different – and a much bigger pain in the ass – that beer and wine. These limitations prevent true bottle shops and causes store owners to carry items they might otherwise drop, but for the need to pretend to be a grocery store.
LC 2078 would eliminate the grocery store requirement – and place no limitations on the hours of operation – from Section 16-4-115, MCA:
(1) A retail license to sell beer or table wine, or both, in the original packages for off-premises consumption may be issued only to a person, firm, or corporation that is approved by the department as a person, firm, or corporation qualified to sell beer or table wine, or both, and whose premises proposed for licensing are operated as a bona fide grocery storeor a drugstore licensed as a pharmacy have received approval from local building, health, or fire officials.
I’m not a fan of the proposed new language (the underlined portion) because it creates an ambiguity. What if fire officials approve it, but the health department doesn’t? Does “local” mean a city, town, or county, but not the State? (State building code requirements kick in where there are no local city or county building codes.) Plus, it suggest the building, health, or fire officials have some say in whether a beer and wine store is appropriate, rather than limiting it to safety compliance issues.
At the very least, it would be good to change this language to read “whose premises proposed for licensing meet all applicable building, health, or fire regulations.“
Frankly, the new language is entirely unnecessary because Section 16-4-115, MCA, already requires the Department of Revenue to determine whether “the applicant’s premises are suitable for the carrying on of the business.” Thus, my preference would be to eliminate the proposed new language.
Though I may be getting a bit technical, I’m not nitpicking here. Ambiguous language in statues is far too common. It is also the kind of thing that trips up good bills like this one, particularly where the State will now have one more requirement to check off before issuing an off-premise license.
The bill is in the final drafting stages. [Edit: The bill was introduced on February 18 and is now known as House Bill 524.]
For all our articles pertaining to the 2013 Montana Legislature, click here.
________________
* Certain bars and breweries may also sell beer and wine for off premise consumption, but that’s a whole different topic.
