A group of local business owners met this week to explore possible action related to Montana's liquor licensing statues. The meeting was organized by our member, Dick Fast, in response to business concerns about restrictive license requirements in state law for municipalities. In addition, Madison County owners are interested in the issue as due to existing restrictions. See the problem the group will tackle in these of these minutes of the first meeting
Think Montana is alone in odd laws governing the sale of alcohol? Check these out:
Maybe we just missed it but we didn't see the letter we wrote to the editor of the Big Sky Weekly last week. Here's what it said:
"The Weekly covered part of the discussion which occurred at the January 14 meeting we held concerning liquor licensing and incorporation. But the article missed one piece of the discussion and the ultimate conclusion decided by participants.
The part of the discussion missed is the data Kay Reeves presented regarding liquor laws, licensed establishments, and growth in five other major western destination ski resorts. For those of you who weren’t there, the data made two points. Major destination resorts constrained by an assortment of liquor license restrictions continue to grow handsomely. Corollary to that is the fact that in comparison, Big Sky is not close to running short of capacity at the current level of licenses. If we were living 50 or 75 years ago and the state of Montana were leading the effort in the U.S. to regulate its sale, there would indeed be a major issue here. But the simple fact is that the ability to purchase an alcoholic beverage in a bar or restaurant is a regulated act in this country. Until the development community in Big Sky presents relevant data to the contrary, we agree with Michael Garrity, the Simkins’ attorney who stated that alcohol should not be the “tail that wags the dog” when it comes to deciding the incorporation question in Big Sky.
The second point missed in the Weekly article was the ultimate result of the meeting. We stated upfront that the outcome of the meeting would be a go-or-no-go decision made by the participants. Should we go forward with communicating information until the voters are ready to vote? Or should we stop now (No Go) based on the issue of alcohol license quotas? 26 of the 31 people who left prior to adjournment said Go, as did a clear majority of those in chairs when we adjourned. We look forward to continuing to get information to the community for an informed decision.
Does the potential for “tearing the community apart” concern us? Absolutely. But at the same time we can’t ignore the many “thank you”, “keep it up” comments we’ve each heard personally from people in Big Sky. The current rip you hear is about alcohol licensing. Is it important? Yes. Are there potential solutions? Yes. Are those in Big Sky who care passionately about this issue capable of taking the proactive path to finding them? We’re sure of it.
Dick Fast, Kay Reeves, Steve Johnson
Community & Infrastructure Solution Group
January 20, 2008"
No one knows the answer to that question as it requires a crystal ball and perfect knowledge of all of the varying market forces that factor into Big Sky's future. There are business owners who view it as devastating. There are business owners who don't think it will make a difference.
We think it is one issue that Big Sky citizens will have to weigh on the subject of self-government. There are many others. Click the link below to see the slides we presented at the meeting on January 14 on the subject of alcohol license quotas.
In the immediate future of the next few years, if Big Sky were to incorporate, nothing would change. The state cannot impose a quota until it receives the 2010 federal census data. This won't be available until the middle of 2011. After that date, new all-beverage licenses would not be available. However beer/wine licenses would be available. All-beverage licenses are transferable and the existing licensees in Big Sky could move or be sold to new establishments.
In the long term, two options are available. The first is to seek an expansion to the existing resort area designation that is in place for the Meadow Village area. This designation provides for an exception to quota limitations provided certain criteria are met. The second is to amend this existing resort exception to meet Big Sky's changing needs through legislative action.
We would like to see a group of business leaders with interest in this area take this issue on and pursue a workable solution. We have contacted a number of people to get this going and hope to see it started shortly.
Big Sky currently has 31 all beverage alcohol licenses spread across businesses in the Mountain and Meadow Villages and the Canyon area. How does this compare to other western mountain towns? Reeves put together some data on Big Sky compared to Vail, Park City, Sun Valley/Ketchum, Jackson, and Whistler. Using licensed establishment and lodging information from their local Chamber of Commerce/Visitor websites, here's what she found.
What does this data say? It says that Big Sky currently has the fewest number of guest beds per licensed bar/restaurant of among the non-Montana resorts listed. Put another way, Big Sky could add 30-45% more lodging beds before our licensed establishments get as busy as those in Whistler or Park City. It also says that Big Sky currently has the lowest number of residents per licensed bar/restaurant (71), making it by far the most saturated (no pun intended) town on this list.
If Big Sky chooses to incorporate as a city within Gallatin County, stricter limits will apply to the number of new licenses available to bars, restaurants and other establishments wishing to sell beer, wine, and other alcoholic beverages. As an unincorporated area, Big Sky is subject to county limits currently. The number available depends on the population of the county and is adjusted annually based on population changes. Gallatin County, both populous and growing, has not issued all of the available licenses. Currently businesses on the Gallatin County side of Big Sky hold a total of 18 all beverage licenses, one beer-wine license, and five off-premises beer/wine licenses.
If the Gallatin County side of Big Sky becomes a city, it, and an area five miles around the city boundaries, would be subject to a quota of four all beverage licenses, four beer/wine licenses and six cabaret licenses. No licenses would be taken away, but no new all beverage licenses would be available because the number held currently exceeds the quota. The earliest that the quotas will be imposed is the middle of 2011, when the federal census data becomes available.
The Madison County side of the Big Sky area would be unaffected. The five mile radius does not cross county lines.
It should be noted that Montana's license regulations are not unusual. Here is some information we found about alcohol license restrictions in our neighboring states:
Idaho
Like Montana, has a quota system that applies at the local level. Roughly one
all-beverage license is permitted for every 1500 people, with exemptions for
golf courses, rodeo grounds, and ski areas outside of municipal boundaries.
Utah
Its quota system does not appear to be locally limited. The total number of
restaurant liquor licenses in the state is limited the state population divided by 5,200. The same goes for private clubs with a divisor of 7,300. Control is at the state level, vested in a five member commission appointed by the governor. The system appears to allow liquor licenses to be concentrated geographically in areas like the Salt Lake City area.SLC.
Wyoming
Has a quota system that looks similar to Montana's. An incorporated city of
2,000 could have four full retail (all-beverage) plus two restaurant licenses.
The latter allow cocktail sales to dining room customers during food service hours,
but these restaurants can't have an accessible bar. In addition, one "bar & grill"
license is permitted for every 7,500 residents. These are similar to restaurant
licenses but appear to allow a separate bar area. There is also a resort license,
similar to Montana's.
Colorado
Does not appear to have a quota system. Decisions regarding new licensed establishments
are jointly made by state and local government with input from the affected neighborhood.
[e.g. from the The Town of Telluride Liquor Licensing Manual:
"The Town Council in public hearing, after taking testimony from interested persons,
approves or denies the application based on the following criteria:
completeness of application, investigative report by departments, the reasonable
requirements and the desire of the adult inhabitants of the neighborhood,
and the good moral character of the partners, officers of the corporation
or individuals applying for the license.
Where a number of licensed liquor outlets already exist, an applicant must
show that the needs of the neighborhood are not adequately being met by existing outlets. T
This can be accomplished through the submission of maps, statements or petitions,
or by providing evidence that might include convenience of access, uniqueness of
service or product, hours of operation, needs of the public, population, traffic
counts, parking or traffic congestion problems, customer requests, and economic
competition."]
