Senate approves resort-hotel liquor license bill after months-long amendments fight

Senate File 42, a measure to expand eligibility for resort-hotel liquor licenses, passed the Wyoming Senate on Jan. 29 after extended floor debate and a series of divided amendments.

The bill, as carried on third reading, won final passage in the Senate by a recorded vote of 23 ayes, 5 no and 3 conflicts. The session’s debate centered on a three-part amendment that sought to: (1) require certain meeting-room and proximity conditions, including a five-mile rule outside city limits; (2) lower the project investment threshold from $10,000,000 to $5,000,000; and (3) reduce the minimum room count from 35 to 20.

The sponsor of the 3rd-reading amendment, identified in debate as Senator Gru, told colleagues the intent was to “lower the bar so more people can have an economic opportunity to provide malt beverage, liquors at their resorts,” and to help remote properties become eligible. He said the measures were aimed at expanding economic opportunity for small “boutique” resorts that are remote from town.

Opponents pressed several concerns. Senator Hicks called one proposed definition “a fencing amendment,” arguing it would “fence everybody out of a hotel liquor license” by sharply narrowing what qualifies as a restaurant and by imposing prescriptive requirements such as printed menus, long operating hours and what kinds of food qualify. “If you don’t have those on the menu...you can’t participate,” Hicks said, adding that the proposal would impose unrealistic operational expectations on seasonal or otherwise small operators. Senator Case declared a conflict on the bill.

The three divisions of the principal amendment were taken separately. Division 2, lowering the investment threshold to $5 million, was adopted. Division 3, reducing the room count from 35 to 20, was also adopted. Division 1, which tied together the five-mile rule and meeting-room size provisions, failed.

A later, separate site-definition amendment that would have added a prescriptive definition of “full-service restaurant” (including minimum hours of operation and printed menus) failed after floor debate in which senators argued it would exclude common, existing businesses and invite unintended consequences. Opponents gave multiple examples — such as seasonal restaurants, conference-center dining that operates only during events, and food trucks — to press that the amendment would be overbroad.

Senators who supported the prescriptive language said it was intended to prevent gaming the program and to ensure that resort liquor licenses go to bona fide full-service businesses rather than to minimal food operations or convenience outlets. “This amendment just provides a prescription so the liquor division knows that a restaurant is a full-service restaurant,” the amendment sponsor said.

After votes on the divided amendment and the failed prescriptive definition, the Senate returned to the underlying bill and approved it on third reading. Voting records show the final tally as 23 ayes, 5 no and 3 conflicts; several senators recorded conflicts during the roll call.

The bill’s supporters argued it would stimulate rural economic development, giving remote lodgings a new revenue option. Detractors warned that overly prescriptive definitions or arbitrary distance requirements could produce unintended harm to small communities and seasonal businesses.

With the Senate’s passage, the bill will be transmitted to the House or to the governor as the legislative calendar requires, with the precise effective date and any engrossed changes to be confirmed in the bill text on the enrolled copy.

Votes at a glance: On the principal motions reported on the floor, Division 2 and Division 3 of 3rd-reading Amendment No. 1 were adopted; Division 1 failed. 3rd-reading Amendment No. 2 (the prescriptive restaurant definition) failed. Final passage: 23 ayes, 5 no, 3 conflicts.