This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/overhaul-of-montgomery-alcohol-monopoly-no-longer-on-tap/2016/02/26/7fb20d0e-dbea-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Overhaul of Montgomery alcohol monopoly no longer on tap Overhaul of Montgomery alcohol monopoly no longer on tap
(35 minutes later)
Montgomery County government’s monopoly on alcohol sales, which appeared headed toward dismantlement three months ago, will remain intact for at least a year and possibly longer.Montgomery County government’s monopoly on alcohol sales, which appeared headed toward dismantlement three months ago, will remain intact for at least a year and possibly longer.
Two bills in Annapolis that proposed sweeping changes in the unusual system are effectively dead for this legislative session, county and state officials said Friday. Instead, state lawmakers asked Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) to assemble a task force to develop plans that could include either full or partial privatization of liquor sales. The panel would have recommendations ready in time for the 2017 session. Two bills in Annapolis that proposed sweeping changes for the unusual system are effectively dead for this legislative session, county and state officials said Friday. Instead, state lawmakers asked Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) to assemble a task force to develop plans that could include either full or partial privatization of liquor sales. The panel would have recommendations ready in time for the 2017 session.
State law requires bars, restaurants and retail stores to buy beer and wine directly from the county warehouse. Retail customers can buy beer and wine in private stores, but most go to county-owned outlets to buy hard liquor. State law requires that bars, restaurants and retail stores buy beer and wine directly from the county warehouse. Retail customers can buy beer and wine in private stores but must go to county-owned outlets to buy hard liquor.
The county collects more than $30 million a year in revenue through the arrangement. But businesses have long complained about poor selection and late deliveries by the county’s Department of Liquor Control (DLC). The county collects more than $30 million a year in revenue through the arrangement. But businesses have long complained of poor selections and late deliveries by the county’s Department of Liquor Control (DLC).
[Last call for Montgomery liquor monopoly?][Last call for Montgomery liquor monopoly?]
Just three months ago, the movement to privatize the county system seemed to have serious momentum behind it. Restaurant and bar owners and wine and beer retailers were organizing under an “End the Monopoly” banner. A group of Montgomery lawmakers, headed by Del. Bill Frick (D-Montgomery), sponsored a bill to place a proposition on the 2016 ballot asking county voters if they wanted to end the monopoly and allow businesses to buy their products from private wholesalers. Just three months ago, the movement to privatize the county system seemed to have serious momentum. Restaurant and bar owners as well as wine and beer retailers were organizing under an “End the Monopoly” banner. A group of Montgomery lawmakers, headed by C. William Frick (D-Montgomery), sponsored a bill to place a proposition on the 2016 ballot asking county voters if they wanted to end the monopoly and allow businesses to buy their products from private wholesalers.
But multiple forces doomed the Frick bill. Leggett protested, arguing that the plan was unacceptable without a provision to replace the revenue produced for the county by the DLC. The measure was also strongly opposed by the influential Montgomery government employees union (United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1994), whose members worked in the DLC warehouse. But multiple forces doomed the Frick bill. Leggett protested, arguing that the plan was unacceptable without a provision to replace the revenue the DLC produced for the county. The measure was also strongly opposed by the influential Montgomery government employees union — the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1994 — whose members work in the DLC warehouse.
[Montgomery’s embattled liquor control director resigns] [Montgomery’s embattled liquor-control director resigns]
On Friday, the county’s House delegation deferred action on the bill. Frick said he will most likely withdraw it next week. “It didn’t look like there were the votes to pass it,” he said.On Friday, the county’s House delegation deferred action on the bill. Frick said he will most likely withdraw it next week. “It didn’t look like there were the votes to pass it,” he said.
Leggett initially favored a partial privatization proposal made by Council member Hans Riemer (D-At Large) that would have modified state liquor law to allow bars and restaurants to buy “special order” products--fine wines and craft beer--from private distributors. Leggett initially favored a partial privatization proposal, made by County Council member Hans Riemer (D-At Large), that would have modified state liquor law to allow bars and restaurants to buy “special order” products — fine wines and craft beer — from private distributors.
But in early January, Leggett told leaders of the four local chambers of Commerce that he was willing to consider full privatization if it held the county harmless financially. He floated the idea of an expedited task force that would develop proposals for legislation in time for the 2017 session. But in early January, Leggett told leaders of the four local Chambers of Commerce that he was willing to consider full privatization if it held the county harmless financially. He floated the idea of an expedited task force that would develop proposals for legislation in time for the 2017 session.
Leggett’s reversal of direction helped to knock the legs from under the Reimer plan. Reimer’s bill was rewritten by a House of Delegates committee to propose an 18-member task force to study the system. Leggett’s reversal helped knock the legs out from under Riemer’s plan. Riemer’s bill was rewritten by a House of Delegates committee to propose an 18-member task force to study the system.
On Friday the county’s House delegation voted to withdraw the re-written Riemer bill. It sent a letter to Leggett calling both the Frick and Riemer measures “flawed” and essentially punting the entire matter back to the county executive, who will take charge of the task force. On Friday, the county’s House delegation voted to withdraw the rewritten Riemer bill. It sent a letter to Leggett calling both the Frick and Riemer measures “flawed” and essentially punted the entire matter back to the county executive, who will take charge of the task force.
Leggett said Friday that withdrawing the bill allows time to consider the issue without the pressure of the legislative session. “It gives us a chance to sit down and work some of this through,” he said. “To do it in a couple of months was pretty risky.”Leggett said Friday that withdrawing the bill allows time to consider the issue without the pressure of the legislative session. “It gives us a chance to sit down and work some of this through,” he said. “To do it in a couple of months was pretty risky.”