Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Wicomico License Change Sparks Local Opposition and Livestreamed Testimony
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 390 (Wicomico County) would create a limited set of retail Class A licenses tied to council districts; proponents argued careful local tailoring and delegated support, while NAACP leaders, physicians and the dispensary manager warned of community impacts and legal ambiguity.
Senator Mounts presented Senate Bill 390 as a locally negotiated, limited change to Wicomico County's alcohol licensing framework that would authorize up to three retail licenses (each required to be in different councilmanic districts) while preserving size and district limits. The sponsor and county representatives emphasized that the reprint and county delegation had worked with the council and executive to craft restrictions intended to balance local dispensary protections with measured retail expansion.
Community opponents — most prominently Monica Brooks, president of the Wicomico County NAACP branch and regional NAACP representative — urged an unfavorable report, arguing the proposal "more than doubles" potential retail access and expressing distrust of the local process, particularly around placement of new retail licenses and the effect on predominantly Black and low‑income neighborhoods. "This bill ... is a policy decision that will shape the character of our neighborhoods," Brooks said, calling for prioritizing grocery and healthy food investment instead of increased alcohol access.
Physician Jason Arrington, testifying virtually, supported the dispensary model and cautioned against incremental changes that could erode a county revenue and public health system he said benefits residents. Justin Collison, general manager of the Wicomico County Dispensary System, flagged conflicting bill language (a clause allowing "not more than one license in a councilmatic district" versus a clause capping "not more than a total of three licenses"), warning that ambiguity could be litigated and unintentionally expand license counts.
County and delegation supporters pointed to local letters of support and a 5‑2 county council vote on the reprint, while opponents stressed public hearings and community testimony at the county level arguing against expansion. The committee heard both in‑person and virtual testimony and closed the hearing without a vote.
Where the bill's language remains ambiguous, several witnesses urged redrafting to remove conflicting provisions and clarify whether the reprint limits the county to three total licenses (as sponsors later stated) or permits one per council district, which could create up to seven licenses. The committee did not take a vote on SB390 at the hearing; senators indicated follow‑up on drafting issues might be needed before final action.
