CO: Scott draws retailers’ ire over liquor measure
By Charles Ashby
March 27, 2018
DENVER — Sen. Ray Scott is not making many friends in the beer and retail store industries, some of whose representatives say his bill to limit sales of full-strength beer not only is anti-business, but anti-Republican.
His measure, SB198, calls for putting restrictions on grocery and convenience stores that will be allowed to obtain expanded licenses to sell full-strength beer under a new law going into effect on Jan. 1.
While Scott said he’s trying to better define how that new law will be implemented, opponents said his bill goes against everything the brewers, distributors, retail store owners and even liquor store owners agreed to two years ago.
“This is actually a more restrictive bill than the law we had before,” said Chris Howes, president of the Colorado Retail Council. “(Stores) have spent millions of dollars waiting to get ready for January 1st.”
Under a law passed in 2016, those convenience and grocery stores were allowed to purchase more than one license per chain to start selling full-strength beer, replacing the fermented malt beverages, or 3.2 beer, to which they currently are limited.
Other stores that don’t expand the shelves where they currently sell beer, or don’t add new products there, would have their current licenses automatically convert to allow full-strength beer.
But the bill Scott, a Grand Junction Republican, introduced earlier this month would require all stores to apply for expanded liquor licenses. That would allow local governments to deny licenses if they deem there are too many beer sales in a given area or stores are too close to a school.
Scott said liquor stores are concerned about what will happen next year when suddenly so many outlets will be able to sell full-strength beer.
“It doesn’t change what’s going to happen on Jan. 1,” Scott said. “We’re just trying to put some sideboards on it, and local governments want some local control.”
But Grier Bailey, of the state convenience store association, said the bill changes everything. He said it wasn’t the grocery stores that drove the 2016 law, but liquor stores, and he questioned why this issue is coming up at the 11th hour.
“The bill two years ago, that wasn’t passed by the convenience stores and grocery stores, that wasn’t passed by the retail council,” Bailey said. “We agreed to help support it. The governor when he signed it did not ask Grier Bailey’s opinion, didn’t ask for convenience stores’ opinion. He asked for the liquor stores’ opinion. The liquor stores passed that bill. That bill would not have passed without wholesale liquor stores’ support.”
The bill also would bar retailers from allowing anyone under 21 to sell beer, check age identification, make off-site deliveries of beer or have any contact with alcoholic products whatsoever.
Opponents said that portion alone would result in stores having to lay off thousands of workers because it would be impossible to guarantee that they stay away from alcoholic products.
Others said the new law was a hard-fought deal years in the making, and were upset they are being forced to fight it again.
“Come on, man. What are we doing here? This deal was made,” said Scott Paulson, manager of Sucotte Investments, which operates numerous convenience stores in the state. “The fact that we’re even having this discussion is confusing. Wasn’t this settled two years ago? Isn’t a deal a deal?”
Several small, independent liquor store owners, however, said that deal didn’t include them, but focused mainly on corporations and large-chain outlets.
“It’s scary to us that (the new law) passed the way it did,” said Brandi Fisher-Pollock, owner of Fisher’s Liquor Barn in Grand Junction. “I would have loved to have been on the working committee to give my opinion to say this is how we feel on the Western Slope about these laws, and what can we do to keep alcohol safe and not in the hands of our kids.”
When Gov. John Hickenlooper signed the 2016 bill into law in June 2016, Fisher-Pollock’s manager, Josh Matteson, told The Daily Sentinel that Hickenlooper did the right thing.
“It was a good compromise,” Matteson said at the time. “It’s one of those things where you have to say, either let them in 100 percent or let them in in a controlled fashion. This way, it’s a little more regulated. It helps them get what they want, and helps us transition into that, so I think it’s a good thing.”
The Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee heard testimony on the bill last week. It’s not yet known when the committee will vote on the bill.