Restaurant beer and wine licenses are limited by the state based on population size. But a relatively new law has opened the door for cities to petition the state for additional licenses. Last year, the Sitka Assembly asked for three more, which were made available on a first-come-first-serve basis.

Two restaurants are now competing for the final license- Harbor Mountain Brewing and Highliner Coffee. The Alcohol Marijuana Control Office (AMCO) board reviewed both applications in August and is asking for local government input before it selects one.

At the Sitka Assembly meeting on September 22, Highliner owner Sherri Blankenship said her business was already operating as one that should qualify for a restaurant license. 

“This one’s a hard one because we also like Harbor Brewing Company a lot, and it was an unfair position to be put in. That being said, I’m here tonight to stand up for my business and for my twenty-some employees that I employ all year round,” she said. “Approximately 70% of our sales are food. We are not proposing to build a food program around a beer and wine license. You know the reason why we want this license is because we need to continually add to our business in order to provide the employment that our staff needs.” 

This would be Highliner’s first and only license to serve alcohol. The brewery already has licenses to serve beer and wine, but a restaurant license would offer the business more flexibility in its serving limits and operating hours. 

Emerald Hagy is the brewery’s assistant general manager. While she said the assembly should approve both applications, she said giving AMCO local perspective is crucial. Otherwise the decision could be left up to chance, like when the brewery was competing for the community’s lone distillery license last year. She said at that time the board “explicitly expressed frustrations with the lack of weigh-in from the local governing body.”

“The decision ultimately came from drawing a name out of a dirty coffee mug,” she said. “This was disheartening, not because our name wasn’t chosen, but because our elected officials had failed to advocate in any fashion what was in the best interest of the community and allowed that decision to fall to the state.”

While state law allows the local assembly to express a preference for one applicant over the other, city staff recommended the assembly approve both businesses for AMCO’s consideration. Municipal attorney Rachel Jones said if the assembly did want to recommend one business over the other, it had to be intentional. The assembly could only weigh things like sales tax records, the number of jobs the business provides, or public safety as factors when making its decision. 

“If you make any recommendations-based public policy, it can’t be arbitrary and capricious, which would be personally liking one business more than the other, or ‘I go to this one more often. My kids like that one the best.’ That’s personal reasons, that’s not public interest reasons,” she said. “You would be wanting to distinguish between applicants on the basis of things you, as the governing body, have authority over.” 

That put the assembly in a tough spot. With friends involved in both businesses, Chris Ystad recused himself. And Scott Saline said they should just ask for more licenses.

“We should make a motion right now and tell AMCO, ‘Hey, you dudes are creating a division in our town. We’re trying to keep it together as it is. We need more,'” Saline said. “Anybody want to back me up that we vote on this right now and just get onto the next thing?” 

Mayor Steven Eisenbeisz said they could ask for more licenses, but the question would need to return to the group for consideration at a future meeting. He and other assembly members, including Kevin Mosher, agreed that approving both was the right move. 

“Both businesses are great and worthy businesses,” Mosher said “But I will point out that AMCO…they’re involved with alcohol all the time. We’re not. I know we have the right, but I do feel uncomfortable just trying to pick one over the other. So I would prefer to stick with the staff and forward it on as is.” 

The group briefly considered a proposal to table the item, but ultimately voted 6-0 to approve both applications, sending them to the AMCO board for a final decision at its November meeting.