A state bill that could have led to the end of Montgomery County’s alcohol monopoly is dead for this year after it was withdrawn from consideration by this year’s General Assembly.
Del. Bill Frick (D-Bethesda) Thursday withdrew his bill calling for a referendum to allow voters to decide the fate of the county government’s monopoly on the distribution of all alcohol and the retail sale of all liquor.
“We didn’t have the votes so it seemed the most constructive way forward is to work with the county executive,” Frick said Friday morning, referring to County Executive Ike Leggett’s plan to create a task force to study possible ways to privatize the county’s Department of Liquor Control (DLC). “I didn’t want to put it to a vote and force people who have mixed feelings about it to commit against it… I’d rather hold off now and hopefully win them over before next year.”
Frick’s bill seemed to gain momentum after it was proposed in October. Local restaurateurs and small beer and wine shop owners frustrated with the problem-plagued DLC lined up to support it. The Washington Post also mentioned the bill as a possible solution to the county’s liquor control issues in a December editorial that called for the end of the unique monopoly.
County officials, including all but one County Council member and Leggett, cautioned that ending the county’s monopoly would force the closure of the DLC. The officials warned that the loss of the department’s more than $30 million in annual profit could affect the county’s capital budget and school construction projects because the funds are used to back more than $100 million in county bonds. They lobbied hard against the bill and were joined by the local labor union—UFCW Local 1994 MCGEO—representing more than 350 DLC employees. Union workers regularly attended key meetings surrounding the issue, wearing bright yellow T-shirts.
On Feb. 26, dozens of DLC employees appeared at the county’s House delegation meeting in Annapolis, where the delegation’s members decided not to vote on proposed legislation concerning the DLC and instead voted to send a letter to Leggett instructing him to set up a task force to study the department’s problems and how to fix them.
Leggett had previously sent a letter to the presidents of four local Chambers of Commerce in January that said he would support the creation of an expedited task force to develop possible privatization options—but only if its recommendations address the financial issues faced by the county. The task force’s work could result in legislation proposed before the 2017 General Assembly session, which begins in January. Patrick Lacefield, a spokesman for Leggett, said Thursday the task force is in the works, but there’s currently no timeline for setting it up.
Frick also withdrew a bill that would have enabled the county to sell off its DLC retail stores, warehouse inventory and beer distribution franchise rights as well as a provision to direct sales tax revenue back to local jurisdictions. Frick introduced that bill to attempt to address the revenue shortfalls the county could face if the DLC were unable to compete with private distributors without the monopoly in place.
Frick, however, encouraged those interested in significant change in the county’s alcohol policy to continue to follow the process.
“I know there are a lot of consumers interested in changes,” Frick said. “I need them to stay engaged. If we’re going to prevail, we need those folks to be committed and communicate with their elected officials and stay vocal, because that’s an essential part of the process.”
