Prince George's County - Alcoholic Beverages - Multiple Licenses Prohibition - Exceptions PG 313-26
Summary
HB406 is a local bill applying only in Prince George’s County that expands exceptions to the county’s general prohibition on a person or entity holding multiple alcoholic beverages licenses for the same person or premises. Under current law, the multiple-license ban already has limited exceptions, including certain bowling establishments and a Class B-ECF/DS license. This bill adds two more exceptions: Class B (on-sale) beer and wine licenses, and Class B (on-sale) beer, wine, and liquor licenses.
In practical terms, the bill would allow a person or business to hold one of these newly exempted Class B licenses even where the county’s usual multiple-license restriction would otherwise bar it. The act amends the Prince George’s County provisions in the Alcoholic Beverages and Cannabis Article and takes effect July 1, 2026.
Impact
The bill amends Section 26-1505 of the Alcoholic Beverages and Cannabis Article as it applies only in Prince George’s County, narrowing the reach of the county’s multiple-licenses prohibition by creating additional exceptions for Class B on-sale beer and wine and Class B on-sale beer, wine, and liquor licenses. It does not change statewide alcohol licensing rules, but it does affect how the Prince George’s County Board may issue and administer licenses for restaurants and similar on-sale establishments. The practical effect is to increase flexibility for certain license holders and applicants in the county.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests the bill was broadly supported and noncontroversial. It received favorable committee action in the House and passed both chambers unanimously, with 131-0 in the House and 47-0 in the Senate. No committee transcript or recorded debate was provided, but the unanimous votes indicate strong consensus in favor of the measure.
Contention
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided record. Because the bill creates exceptions to a licensing restriction, any potential concern would likely center on whether allowing multiple licenses could increase market concentration or alter local alcohol regulation, but no member objections or opposing arguments are shown in the available materials. The unanimous votes suggest that any such concerns were either minimal or resolved before floor consideration.