Heated debate over letting salons and barbershops sell alcohol: safety, fairness and fees divide committee witnesses
Loading...
Summary
SB 669 would allow on‑premise alcohol sales at barbershops and salons under a two‑tier system. Industry groups, enforcement officials and restaurant interests clashed over public‑safety training, food requirements, parity with breweries and enforcement capacity.
The House Executive Departments and Administration committee on April 1 heard hours of testimony on Senate Bill 669, a proposal to allow barbershops and salons to offer a limited, on‑premise alcohol service. Representative Jackie Grotta introduced the measure for Senator Perkins Cook; the bill would create a two‑tier framework (a $100 complimentary tier and a $480 sales tier), limit service to one drink per client per appointment, require recordkeeping and liquor‑commission training, and task the Liquor Commission with enforcement and reporting.
John Hunt, chair of the House Commerce Committee, testified in opposition and reviewed New Hampshire’s licensing history and food‑requirement rules, saying the state’s licensing framework has traditionally tied alcohol service to food to limit nuisance and public‑safety risks. "If you just open it up and say anybody can sell alcohol without restrictions, you will be flooded with requests," Hunt warned.
Industry witnesses split. CJ Haynes of the New Hampshire Brewers Association opposed the bill as written on parity grounds: breweries face stricter limits (they may serve their own product in limited quantities and must meet food pairing or higher fees) and could be disadvantaged if salons can sell wine and spirits at lower cost. Mike Summers of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association also opposed the bill, saying restaurateurs invest heavily in kitchen infrastructure and that a cheap new license would create an unfair competitive advantage. He pressed for restoring mandatory staff training and questioned whether the one‑drink limit is enforceable.
Nathan Riggs, a barber and veteran who helped push for last year’s change allowing complimentary service, supported SB 669’s sales tier as a practical next step. "SB 669 simply connects them," Riggs told the committee, arguing that modest revenue from drinks could help small businesses without turning shops into bars.
Liquor Commission officials (Chief Mark Armaganian and Lt. Matt Culver) described enforcement work and reiterated why food has been tied to most license types: food slows alcohol absorption and is one of several risk‑mitigation measures. They said the commission is focused on fairness and safety, and expressed concern that expanding sales without adequate training and fees could strain enforcement and produce unintended consequences.
Committee members asked whether the bill’s fees would cover enforcement costs and whether existing wine/beer/manufacturer licenses provided precedents for limited onsite service. No committee vote was taken; the chair closed the hearing after hours of testimony and extensive Q&A.
