This bill fixes the application fee structure for new permanent alcohol licenses and lists annual renewal fees across nearly every license type regulated by California’s Alcoholic Beverage Control framework. It distinguishes a standard application fee, a much larger fee for a defined set of high‑value license types, special fees for particular certificate/permit types and duplicate licenses, and it requires the annual renewal fee to accompany the application.
The bill also authorizes the Department to increase fees each January 1 using a California CPI calculation, but only while the Alcohol Beverage Control Fund balance remains below one‑quarter of the Department’s appropriation and subject to limits: no automatic cumulative increases above 8% without legislative approval, rounding rules, and a publication requirement. These mechanisms change how applicants, licensees, and the department plan for revenue and compliance costs going forward.
At a Glance
What It Does
Sets a $905 baseline application fee for new permanent licenses, prescribes a $15,835 application fee for a specified group of on‑ and off‑sale license types, enumerates annual renewal fees by license type, and authorizes annual CPI‑based fee adjustments with statutory conditions and caps.
Who It Affects
Prospective alcohol license applicants and current license holders across brewer, winery, wholesaler, on‑sale and off‑sale license types; the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for fee administration; and small producers who pay tiered, production‑based fees.
Why It Matters
Rather than requiring the Legislature to update dozens of fee lines each session, the bill gives the Department a mechanized path to keep fees aligned with inflation — but ties that authority to the fund balance and an effective 8% accumulation cap that shifts oversight and revenue risk between the Department and the Legislature.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill does two things at once: it codifies an exhaustive fee schedule for alcohol licensing and sets out a controlled process for inflationary fee increases. For new permanent licenses it establishes a baseline application fee ($905) while carving out a higher application fee ($15,835) for a defined set of license types (including many on‑sale general licenses, music venues, brewpubs, caterers, and others).
It also lists many other specific application fees for certain certificates, duplicate licenses, and narrow permit categories.
For annual operations, the bill enumerates renewal fees by license type and, where applicable, by locality size or production tiers (for winegrowers and blenders, for example). The statute requires applicants to submit the annual renewal fee with their application; that annual fee keeps the license active for one year from issuance and is refundable only if the application is withdrawn or denied.
When multiple new permanent licenses are applied for at the same premises, the application fee is charged only once (the highest applicable fee), though each license still requires its own annual renewal fee. A limited duplicate‑license fee rule (for Duplicate Type 02 and other duplicate categories) appears in the application section.To avoid freezing fees at fixed amounts, the bill lets the Department adjust fees upward each January 1 using a California Consumer Price Index comparison (August 2019 vs. August 2018 as the base year and the same month annually thereafter).
But the Department cannot implement an adjustment if the Alcohol Beverage Control Fund balance at fiscal year end exceeds one‑quarter of the Department’s appropriation from that fund, and it cannot unilaterally apply accumulated increases that exceed 8% without Legislature approval via the budget process. The statute also prescribes rounding (nearest $5), requires the Department to publish the adjusted fee list on its website and notify the Joint Legislative Budget Committee by January 10 before the fee year, and exempts the fee adjustment publication from the state’s administrative rulemaking requirements.Practically, the bill tightens how applicants must budget (application plus renewal fee up front), gives the Department a predictable but constrained inflation tool, and leaves a mix of protections and oversight points in place — a fund‑balance cutoff, an effective accumulation cap, and an explicit legislative checkpoint if increases accumulate beyond a threshold.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The baseline application fee for a new permanent license is $905; certain categories must instead pay $15,835 at application.
The annual renewal fee must be submitted with the application, keeps the license active for one year, and is refundable only if the application is withdrawn or denied.
If multiple new permanent licenses are applied for at the same premises, the application fee is charged once (the highest applicable fee), but annual renewal fees are payable for each license.
The Department may increase fees each January 1 based on a California CPI calculation, but it must not do so if the Alcohol Beverage Control Fund balance exceeds one‑quarter of its appropriation and may not apply accumulated increases over 8% without legislative approval.
Adjusted fees are rounded to the nearest $5, published on the Department’s website, and transmitted to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee by January 10; the adjustment step is exempt from the state administrative rulemaking process.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Application fees for new permanent licenses and duplicates
Subdivision (a) lays out the upfront charges that applicants must pay when filing for a new permanent license. It creates a default $905 application fee, then designates a large group of license types (off‑sale general, many on‑sale general categories, music venues, brewpubs, caterers, special uses, etc.) that must pay $15,835. The provision also specifies smaller application fees for narrow certificates and permits (direct shipper permits, stills, out‑of‑state shipper certificates) and sets a $440 fee for Duplicate Type 02 applications. Practically, this section forces applicants for higher‑value retail and entertainment licenses to commit a significant nonrefundable (up to certain limits) payment at filing.
Comprehensive annual renewal fee schedule by license type
Subdivision (b) contains the detailed annual fee schedule across dozens of license types, including tiered fees based on production (winegrowers and blenders), locality population bands for many on‑sale licenses, and separate lines for seasonal, duplicate, and special permits. Although the statute shows historical 'through September 30, 2019' and 'on and after October 1, 2019' amounts, the operative effect is to fix the numerical baseline the Department will use as the starting point for future CPI adjustments. For compliance teams this is the authoritative list to map license types to annual costs and to identify when locality or production tiers affect pricing.
Renewal payment rules, refunds, and combined‑application mechanics
Subdivision (c) requires that, in addition to the application fee, the annual renewal fee accompany the application and explains refund and multi‑license rules. The statute makes the application fee nonrefundable up to the baseline amount, allows the annual fee to be refunded only if the application is withdrawn or denied, and instructs that if multiple new permanent licenses are requested for the same premises the applicant pays a single application fee (the highest applicable fee) while still remitting individual annual fees for each license. It also clarifies that when applicants combine a new permanent license filing with a license transfer, only the higher of the two fees is required at filing. These mechanics matter for budgeting and for structuring multi‑license transactions.
Authority to adjust fees annually using California CPI and fund‑balance cutoff
Subdivision (d) gives the Department conditional authority to increase each fee annually on January 1 by an amount not to exceed the percentage change in the specified California CPI (All Items) comparing August of the prior year to August 2018 as the base. Crucially, the Department must not implement such adjustments if the Alcohol Beverage Control Fund balance at the end of the prior fiscal year exceeds one‑quarter of the Department’s appropriation from that fund. The statutory language also says that if cumulative increases exceed 8%, the Department cannot apply further adjustments without legislative approval — inserting an explicit brake on fee creep and reserving a role for the Legislature when inflationary adjustments would otherwise compound materially.
Rounding, publication, and administrative exemptions for adjusted fees
Subdivision (e) sets the rounding rule (to the nearest $5), requires the Department to publish the adjusted fee list on its website and to transmit it in writing to the Chair of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee no later than January 10 before the year of effect, and states that this adjustment and publication are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (state rulemaking requirements). The combination of a statutory notification deadline with an APA exemption speeds implementation but reduces the standard public‑rulemaking process and comment opportunities.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC): Gains a clear, statutory mechanism to recover costs and adjust revenue for inflation without seeking frequent statutory fee updates, improving budgetary predictability.
- Applicants for multiple licenses at one premises: Save on upfront costs because the statute charges the application fee only once (the highest fee) when several new permanent licenses are applied for together.
- Operators of higher‑fee license types (music venues, brewpubs, caterers, on‑sale general categories): Benefit from a transparent, published fee schedule that clarifies upfront capital requirements for licensing transactions and transfers.
- Budget and finance offices in state government: Receive an explicit mechanism (fund‑balance cutoff and 8% accumulation rule) that constrains automatic fee increases and provides a legislatively enforceable checkpoint for larger revenue shifts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Prospective licensees (especially retail and entertainment venues): Must pay a large nonrefundable application fee ($15,835 for many license types) up front, increasing the capital required to enter the market.
- Small producers and specialty permit holders: Face tiered annual fees tied to production bands or locality size and may see cumulative CPI increases over time, raising operating costs for small wineries, small breweries, and other craft producers.
- Department staff and compliance teams at licensees: Must implement, track, and apply the CPI adjustment mechanics, rounding rules, and publication deadlines — increasing administrative work and systems maintenance to ensure correct fees are charged.
- Legislature and budget offices if accumulated increases exceed 8%: Bear oversight and potential budgetary choices when adjustments surpass the statutory cap and require explicit approval through the budget process.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to reconcile two legitimate goals — giving the Department a practical, automated tool to keep fees in line with inflation, and protecting licensees and legislative oversight from unchecked fee increases — but those goals pull in opposite directions: administrative speed and predictability vs. transparency and democratic control over revenue policy.
The statute’s CPI adjustment mechanism trades legislative housekeeping for administrative flexibility, but that trade creates implementation ambiguity. The text uses August 2019 vs. August 2018 as the base comparison and references 'each August annually thereafter,' which yields an annual percentage that must be tracked year‑over‑year; if the referenced index is discontinued, the Department must consult the Department of Finance to pick a replacement — a process that can become contentious and slow.
The combination of a fund‑balance cutoff and an 8% cumulative cap produces a two‑layer constraint but leaves open questions about timing: a fund balance just below the cutoff could permit a full CPI increase even if the Department previously deferred multiple increases that would otherwise have exceeded 8% cumulatively.
The exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act speeds fee publication but reduces procedural transparency and public comment. That makes it harder for affected industries and local governments to surface concerns before adjustments take effect.
Practical enforcement questions remain: how the Department will calculate and communicate partial‑year proration, how rounding to the nearest $5 will affect many low‑amount categories over time, and whether the nonrefund rule for application fees (refundable only on withdraw/deny) will produce disputes about when an application is 'withdrawn' versus administratively closed. Finally, the statutory schedule ties current fee baselines to amounts labeled by 2019 dates; practitioners will need care to confirm which numeric baseline applies and whether any historical cross‑references in other statutes interact with these lines.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.