Testimony on House Bill 669 - Wholesale Beer and Wine Association of Ohio, Jacob C. Evans

Summary

Testimony on House Bill 669 to the Ohio House Committee on Commerce and Labor, with Jacob C. Evans, Counsel for Legislative Affairs, named under the heading and the Wholesale Beer and Wine Association of Ohio (WBWAO) as the organization giving its opinions. The WBWAO states that it represents family owned beer, wine and mixed beverage distributors throughout Ohio. It offers input on the involvement of regulators in the expansion of permit premises, the meaning of closed containers for to-go alcohol beverages, and delivery of alcohol by third parties. It opposes language allowing an A-3a permit holder to make delivery of spirituous liquor, citing Granholm v Heald, a US Supreme Court decision, and supports changing retail permit holder to qualified permit holder.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

                                              Testimony on House Bill 669
                                     Ohio House Committee on Commerce and Labor
                                          Representative Gayle Manning, Chair
                                      Jacob C. Evans, Counsel for Legislative Affairs

Chair Manning, Vice Chair Dean, Ranking Member Lepore-Hagan and members of the House Commerce and Labor
Committee, thank you for the opportunity today to express the opinions of the Wholesale Beer and Wine Association of
Ohio on House Bill 669.

The WBWAO represents family owned beer, wine and mixed beverage distributors throughout Ohio. In addition to
alcohol beverages, our members also distribute water, juice and other beverages. As we have shared with everyone on
the Committee and the Sponsors, the WBWAO had several items in which we offered input.

First, in regards to the expansion of permit premises, the involvement of regulators and law enforcement at some point
in the process should be required. At a bare minimum, requiring the expansion be provided to the Division of Liquor
Control in order for them to know where alcohol beverages are being legally sold is necessary in order to ensure
compliance with Ohio’s liquor laws.

Second is the sale of “to-go” alcohol beverages or cocktails. Current law allows an on premise permit holder to sell beer,
wine and mixed beverages in SEALED containers for home consumption. The proposed change would allow the same
permit holder to sell beer, wine and mixed beverages AND spirituous liquor in CLOSED containers. This would allow a bar
or restaurant to sell a tall draft beer, a 9 ounce glass of wine or a double bourbon in a cup with a lid. With no definition
of “closed,” we would suggest that language be included that provides direction for retailers as to what “closed” means;
this could be similar to the “merlot to go” language that requires it to be “securely sealed by the permit holder . . . in
such a manner that it is visibly apparent if the container has been subsequently opened or tampered with and not easily
accessible by the driver. (4301.62(E)(1) & (2)).

Next is the delivery of alcohol by third parties. Today, entities such as Instacart, DoorDash, Amazon, and Shipt are among
the over 350 H permit holders in Ohio. An H permit allows a third party to deliver alcohol. If the Legislature determines
that cocktails to go is appropriate, than no change to Ohio law is mandated to allow either the permit holder (i.e. the
restaurant) or the third party delivery company (i.e. DoorDash) to deliver the alcohol. The privileges of the D permit
holder (the restaurant) and the delivery company (DoorDash) would allow these deliveries to occur.

Fourth, the WBWAO would like to express our opposition to the language that allows an A-3a permit holder to make
delivery of spirituous liquor. The most immediate issues that arise from this change are in regards to a 2005 US Supreme
Court decision in Granholm v Heald that made clear that in state and out of state producers of alcohol must be treated
the same. Thus, allowing an in-state A-3a permit holder to deliver spirituous liquor would require Ohio to allow out of
state spirituous liquor to ship alcohol to Ohio residents. This would be spirituous liquor that is sold outside of Ohio’s
orderly spirituous liquor system and therefore could jeopardize economic development dollars from JobsOhio.

Finally, on a more technical note, we have had discussions with several interested parties regarding the use of “retail
permit holder” in the bill being a certain class of permit holders that are not in fact retailers but manufacturers. For
consistency throughout Chapter 43 of the Revised Code, we support the change from “retail permit holder” to “qualified
permit holder.”

On behalf of the WBWAO, thank you for the opportunity to offer our insights and we are happy to answer any questions
the Committee may have on HB 669.


File and source

File

2020-06-04_commerce-labor_testimony_hb669evansip.pdf

Size

344,192 bytes

SHA-256

225cf4632a3216216c897a16119a2508fb8ada72a37c2152e8670d7a8eb1052d

Our copy

2020-06-04_commerce-labor_testimony_hb669evansip.pdf

Original

No public link identified.