Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Tackey Chan, House Chair
The Honorable Pavel M. Payano, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure
State House, Boston
Delivered electronically
Dear Chair Chan, Chair Payano, and Distinguished Members of the Committee,
On behalf of cities and towns across the Commonwealth, the MMA wishes to express our appreciation for the opportunity to offer testimony in support of two bills pertaining to municipal control of liquor licensing before your committee, H. 437, and S. 279, An Act returning liquor license control to municipalities.
The current framework to secure a liquor license beyond the statutory quota, requiring municipalities to petition the Legislature for additional licenses, was established in 1933, and has become outdated to the needs of cities and towns. In the past five years alone, there have been over 80 petitions granted, allowing for more than 260 additional liquor licenses across the Commonwealth. This is a result of — and contribution to — thriving downtowns. Areas across the state, once quiet, rural areas in 1933, are now flourishing suburban and urban areas with very different needs.
The ABCC website explicitly states that the process to grant an available license may take several months, but the process for those outside of the statutory quota takes much longer. They require the time to prepare, file, hear, schedule, vote and enact home rule petitions. While we greatly appreciate your commitment in facilitating these local petitions, the frequency of these requests implores the process to be simplified and streamlined.
H. 437 and S. 279 would simplify and expedite the process of permitting additional liquor licenses while allowing the Commonwealth to retain control over the granting of licensure through the regulatory powers of the ABCC. The bills would allow municipalities, who best understand local needs and dynamics, to make their own determinations on the appropriate number of liquor licenses for their communities, basing these decisions on the potential benefits and detriments that could come from a higher number of locally granted liquor licenses.
The current process to secure a liquor license within the statutory quota includes obtaining a Certificate of Good Standing from the Department of Revenue, submitting an application to the Local Licensing Authority, and, if approved at the local level, approval by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission (ABCC), a state agency that has final approval. This comprehensive process provides sufficient review of the application and includes substantial time for feedback from the community. We believe this process is more than adequate to effectively manage additional licenses in excess of the previously established quota.
Cities and towns across the Commonwealth understand the importance of building local economies, and these licenses can spur economic activity in communities of all sizes by providing residents a place to eat, shop, and enjoy a night out without leaving their community. H. 437 and S. 279 would bring authority back to local officials, allowing them more flexibility and power to spur economic growth throughout the Commonwealth.
We appreciate your consideration of this important issue, and we respectfully ask the Committee to favorably report out H. 437 and S. 279. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have your office contact me or MMA Legislative Analyst Ali DiMatteo at adimatteo@mma.org at any time.
Thank you very much for your partnership and your lasting support of cities and towns.
Sincerely,
Adam Chapdelaine
MMA Executive Director and CEO