The bill would exempt the Hiram Price Dillon House and surrounding property from the general prohibition against drinking or consuming liquor on public property. Policies regarding the consumption of liquor at the Dillon House would be established by the Legislative Coordinating Council.
The bill also would require liquor licensees to be current in the payment of state taxes. Unpaid taxes under formal appeal or for which a formal repayment schedule had been established would not preclude licensure. The bill states that the provision could not be construed to grant the state any more or any less authority to impose taxes, fees, or charges on Native American nations than exists under state or federal law or tribal-state gaming compacts.
The introduced version of the bill included the provisions regarding the Dillon House and the location of permanent space for the Secretary of State in the Capitol Building. The latter provision was originally in S.B. 400 as that bill passed the House. S.B. 400 was in Conference Committee at the time the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs took action on S.B. 694.
A provision requiring liquor licensees to be current in payment of taxes was originally introduced in S.B. 680. S.B. 680 would have applied to both state and local taxes, would not have applied to licensees under the Liquor Control Act, and would have applied to cereal malt beverage (CMB) licensees. The provision included in S.B. 694 differs from the earlier bill in part by specifically stating that no additional tax authority for the state relative to Native American tribes is created. The other main differences are that S.B. 694 would apply to all licensees under the Liquor Control Act and the Club and Drinking Establishment Act, but not to CMB licensees.
The Senate amended the bill to delete the provisions regarding space in the State Capitol Building and to specify that liquor licensees or applicants would have to have willfully failed to file or pay taxes in order to be denied a license or to have an action taken against a license.
The Division of the Budget's fiscal note on the introduced version of bill states that its enactment would not have a fiscal impact. The Division's fiscal note on S.B. 680, states that the bill would not have had a fiscal impact on the state. The fiscal notes did not address any potential impact of the Senate Committee's amendments.
1. *Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/fulltext-bill.html.