BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
Senator Deborah V. Ortiz, Chair
BILL NO: SB 108
S
AUTHOR: Romero
B
AMENDED: March 12, 2003
HEARING DATE: March 26, 2003
1
FISCAL: Rules / Appropriations
0
8
CONSULTANT:
Vazquez / ak
SUBJECT
Emergency medical services: alcohol: fee
SUMMARY
This bill would enact the Alcohol-Related Emergency
Services Reimbursement Act of 2003, which would require the
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to collect a $0.05
per drink fee from specified wholesalers. The bill
establishes the Alcohol-Related Emergency Services
Reimbursement Trust Fund, administered by the State
Department of Health Services, to allocate reimbursement to
specified local emergency medical services providers that
incur expenses in providing services for alcohol-related
emergencies.
ABSTRACT
Existing law:
1.Creates the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, which imposes
various functions and duties on the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) with respect to the sale
of alcoholic beverages and related licensing.
2.Creates the Alcoholic Beverage Tax Law, requiring the
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
2
State Board of Equalization (BOE) to assess and collect
excise taxes imposed on beer, spirits, and wine.
3.Authorizes each county to establish a Maddy Fund upon
adoption of a resolution by the board of supervisors and
requires, after the costs of administration are deducted,
the Maddy Fund to reimburse physicians and hospitals for
patients who do not make payment for emergency medical
services and for other emergency medical services
purposes as determined by each county, as specified.
4.Creates the County Medical Services Program, administered
by the Department of Health Services (DHS), to assist in
the provision of emergency services.
5.Imposes an excise tax on alcoholic beverages as follows:
For all beer, four cents per gallon;
For all still wines containing not more than 14% of
absolute alcohol by volume, one cent per wine gallon;
For all still wines containing more than 14% of
absolute alcohol by volume, two cents per wine gallon;
For champagne, sparkling wine, excepting sparkling
hard cider, whether naturally or artificially
carbonated, thirty cents per wine gallon;
For sparkling hard cider, two cents per wine
gallon;
For all distilled spirits of proof strength or
less, two dollars per wine gallon; and
For all distilled spirits in excess of proof
strength, four dollars per wine gallon.
1.Imposes an excise surtax (in addition to the excise tax)
on alcoholic beverages as follows:
For all beer, sixteen cents per gallon;
For all still wines containing not more than 14% of
absolute alcohol by volume, nineteen cents per wine
gallon;
For all still wines containing more than 14% of
absolute alcohol by volume, eighteen cents per wine
gallon;
For sparkling hard cider, eighteen cents per wine
gallon;
For all distilled spirits of proof strength or
less, one dollar and thirty cents per wine gallon; and
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
3
For all distilled spirits in excess of proof
strength, two dollars and sixty cents per wine gallon.
This bill:
1.Makes various legislative findings, including:
Emergency medical services are inadequate to
properly meet the needs of the residents of
California.
Alcohol-related incidents on California roads cost
over $3 billion per year in monetary costs.
Alcohol is a factor in nearly one-third of all
vehicle crashes in the state, and emergency rooms and
trauma centers are the primary medical services
providers for those injured in these incidents.
From July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001, inclusive, 60%
of all patients admitted to emergency rooms and trauma
centers in Los Angeles County tested positive for
alcohol.
Emergency rooms and trauma centers can no longer
afford to continue to pay for these services without
reimbursement.
The State of California is facing an unprecedented
budget shortfall that necessitates drastic cuts in
programs and services to the people of California.
2.Enacts the Alcohol-Related Emergency Services
Reimbursement Act of 2003.
3.Requires the ABC to collect a five-cent ($0.05) per drink
fee from wholesalers located in California who distribute
alcoholic beverages to retailers for consumption
in the state. The fee is based on 1.50 ounces of distilled
spirits, 12 ounces of beer, and 5 ounces of table wine.
4.Requires that all funds collected as a result of the
above-described fee be deposited in the Alcohol-Related
Emergency Services Reimbursement Trust Fund, newly
created in the State Treasury.
5.Requires that ABC be reimbursed for the costs of
implementation of the Act.
6.Requires that fees collected pursuant to the Act be used
solely to implement the Act, and that the ABC shall not
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
4
collect fees in excess of the amount needed to fully
implement the Act.
7.Requires that the Trust Fund be administered by DHS and
that it shall consist of fees collected by ABC as
outlined above.
8.Requires that all moneys in the fund be continuously
appropriated to DHS, without regard to fiscal years, for
purposes of implementation of the Act.
9.Makes the following persons and entities eligible for
receipt of the funds: local emergency medical services
providers, including emergency departments, trauma
centers, emergency and oncall physicians, entities that
provide initial prehospital emergency medical
stabilization services, emergency ambulance
transportation, and other emergency medical professionals
and entities that meet the qualifications established by
the department for reimbursement of expenses incurred in
providing services for alcohol-related emergencies.
10.Defines alcohol-related emergency as an incident that
results in the provision of medical services, including
transportation, to a victim who is injured as a result of
the ingestion of alcohol.
11.Requires that DHS adopt regulations that establish
criteria to identify incidents and emergencies that
qualify as alcohol-related emergencies.
12.Requires that qualifying entities shall submit forms to
DHS for purposes of obtaining reimbursement.
13.Requires DHS to adopt regulations necessary to implement
this chapter.
FISCAL IMPACT
The author estimates that the collection of $0.05 per
serving of the alcoholic beverages identified in the bill
from wholesalers is likely to generate approximately $700
million per year in revenue.
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
5
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
This bill creates the Alcohol-Related Emergency Services
Reimbursement Act of 2003, which imposes a $0.05 per drink
fee on any wholesaler located within the state who
distributes alcoholic beverages to retailers for
consumption by consumers. The fee is based on 1.50 ounces
of distilled spirits, 12 ounces of beer, and 5 ounces of
table wine. These fees will be collected by the Department
of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), and deposited in the
Alcohol-Related Emergency Services Reimbursement Trust
Fund, established in the State Treasury. The Department of
Health Services (DHS) will administer the Fund, allocating
reimbursement to local emergency medical services providers
that meet qualifications established by DHS for
alcohol-related emergencies.
Current Regulation and Taxes on Alcohol
The alcoholic beverage tax is a per-gallon excise tax
collected on the sale, distribution, or importation of
alcoholic beverages in California. Revenues from the tax
are deposited into the Alcoholic Beverage Control Fund and
are withdrawn for use by the state's General Fund or used
to pay refunds in the program. According to the State
Board of Equalization (BOE), in 2000-01, there were 2,739
registered taxpayers for purposes of the Alcoholic Beverage
Tax.
The excise tax on beer and wine is generally paid by
manufacturers, wine growers, and importers. Sellers of
beer and wine must pay the excise tax if the tax was not
paid. For distilled spirits, in general, the excise tax is
paid by wholesalers based on sales to in-state retailers.
Sellers of distilled spirits must pay if the excise tax was
not paid by the wholesaler.
Current Tax Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------
|Beverage Type |Current Tax |Current |Current Rate |
| | |Surtax |Per Gallon |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
6
|Beer |$0.04 |$0.16 |$0.20 |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Wine |$0.01 |$0.19 |$0.20 |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Wine >14% |$0.02 |$0.18 |$0.20 |
|Alcohol | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Champagne and |$0.30 |$0.00 |$0.30 |
|Sparkling | | | |
|Wine | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Hard Cider |$0.02 |$0.18 |$0.20 |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Distilled |$2.00 |$1.30 |$3.30 |
|Spirits | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Spirits 100+ |$4.00 |$2.60 |$6.60 |
|Proof | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federal excise taxes were increased in the Revenue
Reconciliation Act of 1990, which was the first increase
since 1951. The current federal alcohol excise taxes are
as follows:
Beer: $18.00 per 31-gallon barrel
Wine: $1.07 per gallon
Spirits: $13.50 per gallon
Calculated per "drink" as defined in this bill:
Beer: Approximately $0.05
Wine: Approximately $0.04
Spirits :Approximately $0.16
In order to bridge the gap between revenues and expenses in
the 1991-92 state budget, a surtax was added to the
existing excise tax on alcoholic beverages, effective July
15, 1991. Assembly Bill 30 (Chapter 86, 1991) added the
alcoholic beverage surtax under current Section 32220,
effective July 15, 1991. According to the Board of
Equalization, before this 1991 tax increase, excise taxes
on most alcoholic beverages had remained the same since the
1950s, with the exception of an increase in the excise tax
on distilled spirits in 1967.
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
7
Emergency and Trauma Care
The author states that this measure intends to reimburse
emergency room and trauma centers for alcohol-related
emergency services. According to a report recently
released by the California Medical Association, one of the
bill's sponsors, hospital emergency losses during fiscal
year 2000-01 reached $390 million, an increase from $325
million in 1999-00, and $317 million in 1998-99. In
2000-01, emergency room and physicians losses totaled $541
million, a 24% increase from the year before.
A recent report titled "Stretched Thin: Growing Gaps in
California's Emergency Room Backup System" completed by the
Senate Office of Research outlined that in California,
hospital emergency room visits increased 12% between 1990
and 1999, from 8.4 million to 9.4 million visits. Critical
care visits increased by 43% and urgent visits by 20%. The
total number of visits per emergency department increased
by 27% during that time, but critical visits jumped by 59%
and urgent visits by 36%.
The report identified reasons for the sharp upturn in
emergency room utilization, including fewer constraints on
access to emergency room services by health maintenance
organizations; Medi-Cal patients' higher ER utilization
because they are do not receive the preventive care they
require for chronic and treatable diseases; the overall
rising number of uninsured, now estimated at 6.3 million,
physician shortages and lack of specialists in many areas
of the state; reductions in medical training slots; other
shifts affecting the availability of on-call specialists;
and health plan requirements for accessibility of
physicians, among others.
Consumption and Calculation of Revenues
Based on numbers provided by the Board of Equalization,
which are from 2001, the estimates for revenue under this
proposal are as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Drink | Gallons | "Drinks" | Fee Per | Revenue |
| | Consumed |Per Gallon | Gallon | Produced |
| | in CA Per | | (Based on | |
| | Year | | $0.05 Per | |
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
8
| | | | "Drink") | |
|-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
|Beer |643,000,000|10.67 |$0.5335 |$343.0 |
| | | | |million |
|-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
|Wine |87,000,000 |25.6 |$1.28 |$111.4 |
| | | | |million |
|-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
|Spirits |41,000,000 |85.3 |$4.26 |$174.9 |
| | | | |million |
-----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
|Total Projected Revenue Under Proposal: |$629.3 |
| |million |
| | |
------------------------------------------------------------
The author indicates that alcohol consumption is not
expected to change, particularly if the new fee is
nominally or not passed along to the consumer. Per capita
alcohol consumption has remained static for the past 30
years. If alcohol companies do pass on the fee, a study
shows that there is very little correlation between
increased prices and decreased consumption.
Alcohol Assessment in Other States
According to the author, California ranks approximately
just above the national median (20th) in its excise tax on
beer. Californians consume approximately 10% of all
alcohol in the United States. As indicated in the previous
table, California assesses $0.20 of taxes per gallon of
wine ($0.005 per drink), $3.30 of taxes per gallon of
distilled spirits ($0.013 per drink), and $6.60 of taxes
per gallon of 100 proof distilled spirits, using federal
definitions of "drinks."
According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest,
Alcohol Project, Washington D.C., seventeen other states
are currently considering increasing their alcohol excise
taxes. These include Arkansas, Maryland, Nevada,
Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Missouri, New Mexico, South
Carolina, Georgia, Montana, Ohio, South Dakota, Nebraska,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Nexus Between Alcohol and Emergency Injuries
The author states that alcohol is a factor in nearly
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
9
one-third of all motor vehicle accidents in the state, and
emergency rooms and trauma centers are the primary medical
service providers for those injured in these incidents.
From July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001, 60% of all patients
admitted to emergency rooms and trauma centers in Los
Angeles County tested positive for alcohol. In 2000, over
1,400 persons were killed in alcohol-related crashes in
California and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration reports that alcohol is a factor in 32% of
California crashes. Alcohol-related incidents on
California roads cost over $3 billion per year.
According to National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug
Information, alcohol is a factor in 68% of manslaughters,
62% of assaults, 54% of murders and attempted murders, 48%
of robberies, and 44% of burglaries. A report to Congress
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
reported in 2002 that alcohol was involved in 37% of rapes.
The National Transportation Institute determined that for
every alcohol beverage sold in California, $0.90 is spent
on health care and related costs caused by alcohol-related
injuries.
Rationale for Alcohol "Fee"
In June 1978, California voters added article XVIII A,
commonly known as the Jarvis-Gann Property Initiative or
Proposition 13, to the state Constitution. The
initiative's purpose was to assure effective real property
tax relief by means of an interlocking package consisting
of a real property tax rate limitation, a real property
assessment limitation, a restriction on state taxes, and a
restriction on local taxes. Proposition 13 added to the
state Constitution the requirement that any changes in
State taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues
collected, must be passed by not less than two-thirds of
all members of the Legislature. Therefore, any legislation
proposing to increase taxes must be passed by a two-thirds
majority of the Legislature.
In Sinclair Paint Co. v. the State Board of Equalization ,
the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the Child
Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 1991 (Act), which assessed
fees on manufacturers or other persons contributing to
environmental lead contamination, constituted in effect a
tax increase thus requiring a two-thirds vote majority
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
10
under Proposition 13. The Supreme Court concluded that the
Act imposed a bona fide regulatory fee, not taxes, and
therefore did not fall under Proposition 13. Therefore,
legislation imposing regulatory fees may be passed by a
majority vote of the Legislature, while legislation
increasing taxes, requires a two-thirds majority vote of
the Legislature.
The Supreme Court has defined regulatory fees as those
charged in connection with regulatory activities, which
fees do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing
services necessary to the activity for which the fee is
charged and which are not levied for unrelated revenue
purposes.
Roles of Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and Board
of Equalization
ABC was created in 1955 by a Constitutional Amendment
(Article XX, Section 22) and is vested with exclusive power
to license and regulate persons and businesses engaged in
the manufacture, importation, distribution and sale of
alcoholic beverages in California. The ABC administers and
enforces the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Act. Approximately 50% of the Department's resources are
devoted to its licensing mandate. Investigators and
Licensing Representatives in the field process applications
for alcoholic beverage licenses and complete investigations
on the moral character and source of funds of the applicant
and suitability of the proposed premises. The remaining
50% of the Department's resources are devoted to its
enforcement mandate. Investigators investigate and make
arrests for violations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Act and Penal Code that occur on or about licensed
businesses.
The following entities must register with the State Board
of Equalization if they obtain a license by the ABC:
manufacturer, winegrower, wine blender, distilled spirits
manufacturer's agent, rectifier, wholesaler, importer,
customs broker, and on-sale general brew pub. Given its
current role in the collection of taxes from the
above-stated entities, the Board of Equalization might be
better choice as the collector of the fees assessed by SB
108. BOE completed an analysis on AB 2744 in 2002, which
proposed a surtax increase. In the analysis, the BOE
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
11
provided the following cost estimate and explanation for
administration expenses associated with implementation of a
change in this area, which offers an indication of the
resources that may be necessary to implement SB 108:
Enactment would have an impact on the BOE's
administrative costs incurred for programming,
modification of returns to reflect the new tax rates,
notification of all affected taxpayers registered with
the BOE prior to the rate change, increased workload in
the return processing area due to errors on returns, and
increased workload for the audit and compliance staff
administering the tax program.
-------------------------------------------------------
| |1st Year |2nd Year |3rd Year |4th Year |
|---------------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
|Personal | $865,800| $836,800| $320,600| $271,100|
|Services | | | | |
| | | | | |
|---------------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
|Operating | $408,300| $127,800| $127,800| $95,700|
|Expense and | | | | |
|Equipment | | | | |
|---------------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
|Total |$1,274,10| $964,600| $448,400|$366,800 |
| | 0| | | |
-------------------------------------------------------
Arguments in Support
The California Academy of Family Physicians states that the
ER care their members provide is often uncompensated or
undercompensated, which requires hospitals to "cost-shift"
the cost of the services onto insured patients through
higher hospital rates charged to health plans and insurers.
This "cost-shifting" results in lower capitation rates for
primary care physicians, and further stresses a system in
which too much primary care is now provided too expensively
in emergency rooms.
The Emergency Medical Services Administrators' Association
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
12
of California write that they are acutely aware of the
fragile condition of California's emergency medical care
system. Hospital emergency departments are overcrowded,
ambulances are frequently diverted from one hospital to
another, physician specialists are becoming unwilling to be
on-call for emergency cases, some hospitals are closing
their emergency departments, and trauma centers are also
threatening closure. The California Catholic Conference
asserts that in this time of severe budget crisis, the
state has to come up with additional sources of revenue to
sustain critical services. We can ill afford to close
trauma centers and emergency rooms.
Supporters site a poll released by the field institute of
the California Health Care Foundation, which reveals that
78% of Californians support a $0.05 per serving increase in
state alcohol fees to avoid cutbacks in emergency medical
services and support health care. The California Society
of Anesthesiologists, Inc. argue in support of the measure,
"Tobacco products are now taxed in recognition of the
health care costs they cause. It is time to move in the
same direction with regard to alcohol." Supporters also
argue that alcohol prices have not kept pace with
inflation. In the past 50 years in the U.S., the average
prices for beer and wine have fallen by more than 25%
relative to the Consumer Price Index, according to a 2002
study.
Arguments in Opposition
Opponents to the measure argue that California's six
million uninsured are the primary reason for the financial
crisis of the state's emergency medical care system. The
diminishing state trauma funding has also resulted in a
severely overburdened system. Over the last fifteen years,
due in part to responsible behavior on the part of
California's alcohol beverage consumers, fewer drivers end
up in the ER and trauma care centers. Alcohol-involved
traffic injuries are down over 50% since 1990 and
California's rate of drunk driving deaths has dropped 70%
since 1982.
Opponents, including California Beer and Beverage
Distributors, Family Winemakers of California, and
California Independent Grocers and Convenience Stores, also
state that the alcohol fee-financed program will very
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
13
likely prove to be administratively unmanageable and could
take years of litigation to resolve. Every patient would
have to be given a blood alcohol test, which is not
routinely done now. This procedure will add additional
costs to the system. Since alcohol is found in products
other than just alcohol beverages, questions will arise as
to the true source of any alcohol found in a patient's
system. Opponents also state that emergency medical
services should be funded with a tax base paid for by
everyone. Everyone needs to have access to these critical
services,
so it stands to reason that they should be broadly
supported by all taxpayers. Opponents additionally cite
recent increases in workers' compensation costs, utility
costs, fuel costs, unemployment benefits, and health care
premium costs.
One organization writes with concern that the
qualifications established for reimbursement of expenses
incurred in the provision of services for alcohol-related
emergencies will be onerous and nearly impossible to
administer. Reimbursement should go to ambulance-receiving
centers based upon volume of unfunded patients as opposed
to only patients under the influence of alcohol. Unfunded
patients are identified through the quantifiable billing
and collection process, unlike the determination of
specific patients who are victims of alcohol-related
emergencies. Not every patient is subject to alcohol
testing and often the physicians and nurses cannot
immediately confirm the source of the accident or injury -
this is left to police, sheriffs, and investigators.
Suggested Amendments
The California Association of Public Hospitals and Health
Systems suggests that the following language be added to
the bill, "The department shall adopt regulations for
distribution of funds that give weighted priority to
reimbursement for services to uninsured patients." CAPH
states that due to the growing number of uninsured, rising
costs of providing medical care, and declining revenues to
safety net hospitals related to cuts at the federal, state,
and local levels, public hospitals and health systems face
severe budget shortfalls that threaten their ability to
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
14
continue to provide care to their communities, including
emergency and trauma services. The California Emergency
Nurses Association additionally urges the author to
consider language that allocates funds to
ambulance-receiving centers based on the volume of patients
receiving uncompensated care as opposed to only patients
under the influence of alcohol.
Related Legislation
AB 216 (Chan), currently being considered by the Assembly
Health Committee, imposes a fee of $.10 per "drink" of beer
and liquor. The allocations from the fee revenue are
divided as follows: 8/9 to emergency rooms and 1/9 to
community-based organizations that provide alcohol abuse
treatment and prevention services for minors. Wine is not
included in the measure, and the author states that this is
due to the fact that wine is not marketed to minors.
SB 248 and SB 928 (Romero), forwarded in the 2001-02
legislative session was substantially the same measure as
SB 108 and SB 5X. It required the ABC to collect a
five-cent per drink fee from wholesalers in the state to
meet the needs of local emergency medical providers giving
services in alcohol-related emergencies. SB 248 failed
passage in the Assembly Health Committee. AB 2744 (Thomson
and Chan) in the 2001-02 session likewise failed passage in
Assembly Health Committee. It sought to increase the
excise surtax on alcoholic beverages and stated legislative
intent that revenues generated by that bill will provide
moneys that would not otherwise be available for
expenditures from the General Fund for the purpose of
funding health care programs in California.
AB 1298 (Wesson), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2001, increased
the annual licensing fees by specified amounts through 2004
and annually permitted the ABC to adjust the fees charged,
beginning in the 2005 calendar year, by an amount not to
exceed an inflation factor based on the Consumer Price
Index for the west region.
Identical Measure in the Extraordinary Session
SB 5X is identical to this measure, thus the analyses for
the two measures are the same.
Pending Amendments
The author and Committee staff are currently drafting
amendments to present in Committee that address the
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
15
following questions:
1.Would the collection function be better situated with the
Board of Equalization and not the ABC?
2.Is there language that can be inserted into the bill to
guide how reimbursement will occur? Are there ways that
we can outline the criteria by which the DHS would
determine that an accident was alcohol-related? How will
local emergency medical providers work with local law
enforcement in this area?
3.Should hospitals and local emergency medical providers
who treat more of the uninsured be prioritized for
reimbursement under this law? Is there a methodology or
criteria for reimbursement that can be applied to ensure
that ERs in areas of the highest need are reimbursed
first?
4.Are there ways to standardize how hospitals collect
information on alcohol-related emergencies? Can this
prevent reimbursements from being collected
disproportionately from hospitals that are
better-equipped to test for alcohol and make these
determinations?
5.The author has agreed to delete the word "table" from
page 3, line 11, allowing for the fee to apply to all
wine.
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
16
POSITIONS
Please note that this is a combined list of positions
received on
SB 108 and SB 5X, which are identical bills
Organizations in Support
California College of Emergency Physicians
(co-sponsor)
California Medical Association (co-sponsor)
California State Firefighters' Association,
Inc. (co-sponsor)
Ability First
Administrators' Association of California AltaMed Health
Services Corporation
American Association of Retired Persons
American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
Asian Pacific Policy & Planning Council
Association for Los Angeles Deputy
Sheriffs, Inc.
Association of Trauma Program Managers
of Los Angeles County
Barrio Planners Inc.
Bassett Unified School District
California Academy of Family Physicians
California Ambulance Association
California Association of Physician Groups California
Association of Public Hospitals
and Health System
California Catholic Conference
California Council on Alcohol Problems
California Emergency Nurses Association
California Healthcare Association
California Nurses Association
California Psychiatric Association
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
17
California Police Chiefs' Association
California Rural Indian Health Board,
Inc.
California Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.
California State Firefighters' Association,
Inc.
CHARO Community Development Corp.
City of El Monte
City of Huntington Park
City of La Puente
Congress of California Seniors
Drug Policy Alliance Network
East Los Angeles Community Youth Center
El Monte City Council
Emergency Medical Services
Administrators' Association of California
Emergency Nurses Association
Glenn County
Gray Panthers
Hacienda La Puente Unified School District
Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees
International Union
Imperial County Medical Society
International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers Local Union 11
International Institute of Los Angeles Laborers'
International Union of North
America, Local 300, AFL-CIO
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Maravilla Community Advisory Committee
Motion Picture Studio Grips, Local 80
Napa County Medical Society
Painters & Allied Trades District Council 36
Plaza Community Center
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Service Employees International Union,
Local 1877
Service Employees International Union,
Local 434B
Service Employees International Union,
Local 99
Sierra Sacramento Valley Medical Society
Solano County Medical Society
Sonoma County Medical Association
TELACU
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
18
Tri-City Mental Health Center
Seven individuals
Continued---
Organizations in Opposition
7 - Eleven
Agricultural Council of California
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Bay Area Beverage Company
Beauchamp Distributing Company Budweiser High Sierra
Distributing
California Alliance for Consumer Protection California
Association of Winegrape
Growers
California Beer & Beverage Distributors
California Beverage Merchants
California Grocers Association
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California Independent Grocers &
Convenience Stores
California Manufacturers and Technology
Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Small Brewers Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Central Coast Distributing
Coors Brewing Company
Couch Distributing Company, Inc.
Diageo
Distilled Spirits Council of the United States
Family Winemakers of California
Gate City Beverage
Golden Gate Restaurant Association
Grocery Manufacturers of America
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
House of Daniels, Inc.
Korean American Grocers Association of
California
L & M Distributors
Miller Brewing Company
Mission Beverage Co.
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 108 (Romero) Page
20
Napa Valley Vintner's Association
Nor-Cal Beverage Co., Inc.
Otra Beer
Recovery California Coalition
Southern Wine & Spirits of America, Inc.
Southern Wine and Spirits of America
Stash Distributing, Inc.
The Wine Institute
Tri-Eagle Beverage
V. Santoni & Company
Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of California,
Inc.
Young's Market Company
Four Individuals
-- END --