Committee hears proposal to raise liquor discount for on‑premise licenses and limit consideration of older violations

The committee heard testimony on House Bill 4113, which Representatives said would amend the Michigan Liquor Control Commission’s rules to increase the discount on alcoholic liquor for on‑premise licenses from 17% to 23% and to prohibit the Michigan Liquor Control Commission from considering a qualified violation older than two years when changing the status of a license.

Representative Steckloff said, “House bill 41 1 3 goes hand in hand with 41 1 4, which is representative Coons' bill. Together, these bills amend the Michigan Liquor Control Commission to increase the amount that on premise licenses can deduct from the price of alcoholic liquor bought from the state and prohibit the MLCC from considering a qualified violation older than 2 years when making decisions regarding the changing of status of licenses.” She told the committee the 17% discount “has not been changed in over 20 years” and that the bill would raise it to 23% to help small neighborhood retailers compete.

Jerry Griffin, vice president of government affairs for the Midwest Independent Retailers Association, testified in support and said, “The only thing that this bill will do, and I wanna make it clear, is this will not increase prices for people going into stores.” Griffin described how the state sets wholesale prices and then applies the statutory discount and said the state typically marks up wholesale prices 51–65 percent under the liquor code, with a 65 percent markup commonly used.

Witnesses and carded organizations listed in the transcript included the Midwest Independent Retailers Association (support), and written cards from the Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association (not wishing to speak in support), the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. (neutral), and the Michigan Spirits Association (neutral). Committee members asked about how frequently the Michigan Liquor Control Commission adjusts the wholesale price list; committee testimony indicated the state issues a new liquor price book roughly three to four times per year and that the discount percentage is set by statute and can only be changed by legislative action and the governor’s signature.

The transcript records no committee vote on the bills in the provided excerpt. Testimony included claims that a higher discount would help small, community‑based retailers remain competitive against larger chains and that raising the discount would not raise consumer prices under the current statutory structure; those claims were presented by supporters and are reported here as testimony rather than committee findings.