Liquor License Holders Call Proposed Fee Increases 'Devastating'
Proposal that could double, even triple the costs of licenses would be unacceptable, beverage association official says.
Pdfs
Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz on Friday spoke to members of the county's House delegation about three bills—two of which would raise fees on certain businesses and liquor license holders.
Most of the fees have not been touched since they were instituted by the General Assembly in the 1940s and 1950s. Some date back to 1920 and 1858. Kamenetz's proposed fee hikes would bring in $2.1 million in new revenue to the county.
But Jack Milani, owner of Monahan's Pub in Gwynn Oak and co-chairman of the state Licensed Beverage Association's legislative committee, said increases to liquor license holders would hurt businesses already struggling through a tough economy.
"If you have that kind of increase to the small guy, that would be devastating," Milani said.
Milani said his members are holding on but no one sees a return to profits of three years ago, even though the economy appears to be turning around.
"I don't know if we're ever fully going to get back to those days when people went to lunch and dinner the way they used to," Milani said. "We're going to have to get used to a new normal."
But times have been tough for the county, too.
The state has cut $250 million in highway user money that should have come to Baltimore County for needed roads projects. Kamenetz said he now has to replace the funds with county money.
Additionally, county revenues fell short by nearly $132 million. This year, county revenues are on pace to fall nearly $40 million short of projections.
"We just want some relief here," Kamenetz told the legislators.
"It's not an easy request for any county to come to the delegation and ask them to raise fees," he said. "We're only doing it now because we're looking for funding opportunities to offset cuts."
Currently, the county collects about $1.1 million annually through business fees. If the proposed increases are enacted, the county would collect $2.3 million from a variety of businesses—chain stores, cigarette vendors, dry cleaning and laundry services, construction firms and garages, and retailers.
Increases to fees on liquor license holders—which have not been raised in nearly 70 years—would increase annual revenues from $700,000 to nearly $1.6 million.
Combined, the hikes in business and liquor license fees would give the county $2.1 million in new revenue.
Kamenetz told members of the House delegation that it costs $700,000 to run the county Board of Liquor License Commissioners and that fees from licenses fall $200,000 short of covering costs.
The county executive said that to save money he has combined the positions of chief administrator and the head of inspections into one job. He also froze hiring for one vacant liquor inspector—leaving 13 others filled.
"We're trying to figure out ways we can recover our costs in a prudent way," Kamenetz said. "I think (increasing fees) once every 90 years is fair."
Milani said his association wants to discuss the fee increases.
"We'd be happy to sit down and work with him to try to find a way to fund the board's operations," said Milani.
"I'm not surprised they want to raise the fees," he added. "I just think it should be fair. I don't think our guys are going to think (the proposal) is fair."
daddyo
10:08 am on Saturday, February 26, 2011
This article doesn't directly state the amount of the increase.... But if revenues double, does that mean it is a 100% increase in fees? That is ridiculous!
ron
11:04 am on Saturday, February 26, 2011
Raise the fees and more taxes on all alcohol
K Blue
11:33 am on Saturday, February 26, 2011
What I don't understand about these liquor fee increases is this. The goal of the fees for liquor licenses is to pay for the expense of the county Liquor Board Commissioners and inspectors which run about $700,000 annually. The County says its $200,000 short on this, and the County Executive has frozen an inspector position (which I think is the right thing to do under the circumstances). Why then are the proposed increases to liquor license fees alone projected to increase county revenues from $700,000 to nearly $1.6 million annually? That's quite a jump. Also, its 55 years (not 90 years) since the liquor license fees were touched. Between this increase and the proposed increase in the Maryland First bill (which also affects liquor), I expect that these fee increases will be passed down to consumers (which includes people who don't even drink alcohol) and will hurt smaller establishments. Also, I thought I heard somewhere about cross-training inspectors to save money and improve efficiency. Does this not apply to liquor license inspectors? Is the Liquor Board included in the newly formed Permits department? I don't disagree with raising the fees a bit, but more than doubling it is way extreme.
Ernie Mudd
1:50 pm on Saturday, February 26, 2011
Making the fee's pay for the department at a minimum is a no brainer. As noted by K Blue you're talking 55 years since they have increased. Just adjusting for the inflation of the last 55 years a 100% increase on the fee's is nothing. Perhaps a stepped increase over a period of time would make more sense but a fee increase is entirely reasonable with the shortfall and empty positions. As for Rons comment, yes, raise one of the lowest alcohol taxes in the country. Given we have among the highest tobacco taxes in the country and among the lowest alcohol taxes the message seems to be don't smoke but drink up and go run someone down. That's not the message I want. I don't generally agree with any of the "sin" taxes but if you're going to do them you could at least act like you're doing it fairly! Perhaps our lawmakers could sell their stakes in the liquor industry and vote for some common sense!
K Blue
3:13 pm on Saturday, February 26, 2011
Ernie, I agree that an increase in the liquor license fees is warranted. The issue is how much of an increase. The proposed increases on the schedule seem rather high given the circumstances. They say they need $700,000 to run the department and the projected 2011 revenue without the increases gives them $700,000 (if I am reading this correctly). With the proposed increases, they receive an additional $891,735 which to me seems like a immediate windfall to the county at the expense of business owners and consumers who haven't had the opportunity to plan ahead and budget for them. I like your idea of a step increase. That's fair. That's something people can budget and plan for. Doing it all at once without any prior warning in this economy takes people by surprise. I dont remember anyone talking about increasing these fees. I admire the County Executive's desire to find revenue opportunities to offset costs and shortfalls, but this one sticks out for the simple reason that it came out of nowhere. Has this been a topic of discussion before and I missed it?
Joe Sliwka
8:55 pm on Saturday, February 26, 2011
I believe that everyone is missing the bigger picture. If we force out marginal businesses by raising taxes and fees, than the county would loose out in the long run by the loss of property taxes as well as payroll taxes that go into the county coffers. By using the example that office of liquor commissioners is short $200,000.00 for operating, does that county executive plan to look at every other industry the same way? I would hope so, but since the alcohol industry backed Joe Bartenfelder, I sure the county executive wants to stick it to them first. Any taxes or raising of fees in this economy is regressive.
Oh yea, by the way, if we really want raise money for the county, lets have a $1,000.00 fee for every registered lawyer in Baltimore County. This would get us out of debt real fast and let the ones who can most afford it most, pay for it.
K Blue
12:19 am on Sunday, February 27, 2011
You make some good points. There is nothing worse than an empty storefront, or a new business gone asunder due to expected costs, or the constant turnover of the same type of business in the same location. I have seen it happen time & time again where I live in the County. You cannot encourage new business or support small businesses with these types of practices. I also wonder why liquor license fees are the subject of a separate bill requesting general authority to increase fees (HB1243, http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/bills/hb/hb1243f.pdf) especially since the division charged with monitoring it seems to be breaking even according to the tables (even though they say they are $200k in the hole). In good times, I wouldn't think too hard about it. A 100% step increase over 5-10 years doesnt seem unreasonable since the majority of the fees (as represented by the docs provided) haven't been increased since 1955 (even though some have been increased since the 80s and 90s) . But in rough times such as what we are facing, I question the propriety of increasing the fees at least two-fold all at once if not more absent prior notice. Its all so sudden. Not good at all. Not unless you want to encourage a different type of business. I don't understand this at all. I thought we were trying to encourage business investment in our commercial corridors.
Brad Metheny
10:15 am on Sunday, February 27, 2011
How about enforcing the laws that they already have in place across the board.
I,m sure that the revenues would certainly help offset the operation cost.
We taxpayers, more times than not have to be the enforcers while the County plays both sides of the fence.
For the amount of property taxes that Baltimore County charges us this is totally unacceptable.
Teresa
2:39 pm on Sunday, February 27, 2011
"Devastating" awaits our communities around the corner of time. Maryland contemplating lessening laws for possession of marijuana. Combine that our state is one of the lowest taxed per alcohol beverage, with a lesser charged offense for possession of marijuana, you net our state "businesses" most of us haven't experienced first hand. Current states facing medical marijuana laws recently passed, will openly talk of increase in crime, lowered average age of onset drug experimentation, availability and lack of consequences for illicit use. Our police force is challenged by the size of Baltimore County and enforcement. Think how much harder it will become, once marijuana businesses relocate to operate here. Youth reported in the Maryland Adolescent Survey 2007: 35% of 12th graders had driven alcohol impaired in the last year, 11% marijuana impaired. That data NO LONGER is collected in our schools, they refused to participate in the national survey, communities should be concerned. Youth normative perception of approval of alcohol and marijuana use is on the rise nationally, prescription drug abuse too remember. Accessibility and lack of consequences permits poor decisions in substance use. Increasing fees on liquor licenses and compliance failure will streamline the number of outlet retailers. 75% of society drinks socially, supply and demand will provide business. Impaired driving affects users and non-users, irresponsible licensees would be weeded out of your community.
John
5:00 pm on Sunday, February 27, 2011
OK, they buy a case of beer for $20 (and I know they pay much less) and sell each beer for $3. $72 a case. I think they can afford an increase in the fee if it hasn't increased since the 50's. What else hasn't increased? My property tax... no that's increased. My car registration fee... no that's increased. The amount I pay for beer at the local bar... no that's increased, too. Every expense that touches the daily life of a Baltimore County citizen has increase. It's time the bar owners who are charging so much for drinks to pay their fair share. I'd have more sympathy if I thought bars weren't making money. The ones I visit don't seem to be having any problems getting a crowd to come in and drink.
Stan Modjesky
7:35 pm on Sunday, February 27, 2011
When you look at the two tables published with the article, it appears that liquor licensees would take the worst hit, with cigarette vendors would see no change, and construction companies would see only a paltry increase.
It does look as though KK may be punishing the alcohol licensees for having supported Bartenfelder. It would be interesting to follow the money trail a bit farther to see who the tobacco and construction associations supported.
K Blue
7:59 pm on Sunday, February 27, 2011
The trader licensees are also taking a big hit. Check out page 2 of the miscellaneous fee schedule. Unfortunately, the table doesn't show the number of present or projected licensees in each miscellaneous group.
Stan Modjesky
8:12 pm on Sunday, February 27, 2011
I'd missed that page altogether. It's been over ten years since I closed my book shop, and I don't remember what the traders license cost me. I'm certain that my inventory put me in the $150 to $250 range, and an increase to $375 would not have put me out of business, but I'd have been mighty annoyed, since in the last years of the business, most of my sales were out of state by way of the Web. If I were taking an increase from $800 to $2125 (with a business that size) I don't think the increase would put me out of business, but it would get passed along to my customers.
Most disturbing about all these proposed fees and taxes is that nobody in the government seems seriously motivated to look at spending and make cuts by decreasing the role (=intrusion) of government into our lives.
K Blue
8:40 pm on Sunday, February 27, 2011
What I don't see here is any documented reason to raise any of these fees other than the point that time has passed and they haven't been raised. Perhaps there is a good reason for that. Perhaps that reason, with the exception of the $200k the County says it is in the hole for liquor licenses, needs to be explained in greater detail: i.e, what duties do the administration of these particular licenses have on the particular department responsible for overseeing them. Which departments are falling short? That hasn't been addressed at all. Like the billiards license. Is that really necessary? Is there a pool-sharking operation going on somewhere? Do we really need to send inspectors to check pool tables? If so, how many do we send and how often? What about cross-training inspectors like it was suggested? As presented, this appears to be a revenue opportunity only, and one way or another, these costs will be passed down. Restaurants, festivals, nonprofit events, private clubs, dry cleaners, hotels, traders, etc. Why do plumbers and fitters receive an increase, and not others? The real question is does the administration of each particular license warrant the fee? If so, raise the fee a reasonable amount.
Buzz Beeler
10:49 pm on Monday, February 28, 2011
"We're trying to figure out ways we can recover our costs in a prudent way," Kamenetz said. "I think (increasing fees) once every 90 years is fair."
Is it also fair to lay the county's vast entitlements on the backs of the taxpayers?
We have no idea how much money is being spent on these issues. So much for a transparent government.
Can you imagine the outcry if the taxpayers really knew the truth that they don't count, only the entitled.
DJ Groove
8:30 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The companies don't pay taxes, the people do.