by Ken Quintanilla

Guam - Described as a difficult piece of legislation, lawmakers heard testimony for the second time on Bill 88. And while the bill is also known as the Responsible Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, based off public testimony today it's anything but that.

After receiving its first public hearing last month, Bill 88 went up for a second round of public comment this afternoon. The bill relates to the regulation of alcoholic beverage licenses and according to the bill's author, Senator Michael San Nicolas, current law limits the number of alcohol establishments that can open in any municipality.

"The bill will lift that cap so that there's no artificial limitation of the number of establishments that can open and that's particularly important for the municipalities of Tamuning and Hagatna who are already over their legal limit," he said.

The current cap sets the limit at one liquor license per 200 inhabitants of the village. The municipality of Tamuning-Tumon-Harmon has a population of over 19,000 residents allowing only 99 licenses. That village currently has 140. Hagatna meanwhile has over 1,000 residents, only allowing 6 establishments with liquor licenses. The island's capital has 15.

San Nicolas says in addition to creating more jobs, the bill intends to save jobs from businesses who he says may have to close come June when licenses need to be renewed and exceed the cap.

Tamuning resident Attorney John Thomas Brown says the bill's premises are unfounded and believes leaders have had selected amnesia in enforcing the current law. "The law specifically says, the law that creates the cap says but if there is a license that's been issued, you can't cancel that simply because it exceeds the cap," he said.

Former senator Larry Kasperbauer shared his experience of the negative effects of alcohol, including recently being awoken by the snores of a drunk found sleeping in his garage. He says things aren't getting better but worse. "It just seems incomprehensible that we would simply want to lift it and disregard the public, all these people who have lost their lives or families, have lost their jobs, too. And there are hundreds of people who are losing their lives by accidents by car, or domestic violence or whatever related to alcoholic use," he said.

It was actually Kasperbauer who brought the matter to the committee chair and his wife Carmen shared her dismay about not being contacted. She says lifting the cap ultimately won't benefit such as more tourism but instead turn visitors away, noting, "I don't think to may haste to pass this legislation and I oppose this legislation vehemently, it's really wrong and it's really, really not wise just to make right to legitimize the wrong that was done."

The alcohol license fee meanwhile now sits at $1,000 and Bill 88 also proposes to raise it $200 every two years starting in 2015 and concluding in 2023. "The increase in the fee is going to go specifically to the Regulatory Division at Rev & Tax that oversees the alcohol establishments, it's going to go to the police department to keep our streets safe and it's going to go to the mayors in order to have more community programs to offset the impact of those establishment," said Senator San Nicolas.

And while the fee increase is to ensure the regulatory elements don't suffer when the debt service increase of $15 million is set to take place. And while her village would be impacted the most, Tamuning-Tumon And Harmon Mayor Louise Rivera meanwhile spoke in opposition. She says her villages already experience nuances from alcohol establishments, saying, "We ask senators that increasing of fees from $300 to whatever scheme is being proposed while welcomed gesture for the community to benefit on the fees, it falls short of meeting the needs of the community."

San Nicolas says he hoped to get the bill on the May session agenda before the June renewal date. The original version was discussed during April session but with several amendments specifically lifting the cap for all municipalities not just Hagatna and Tamuning, an objection was made by Senator Brant McCreadie to put the bill back in the community as the first public hearing didn't address those other villages as well.