RED BANK – After having the measure on the books for six months, the borough of Red Bank repealed a keg registration ordinance Nov. 12 at the request of the state division of the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC).
ABC Director Jerry Fischer declined to approve keg registration ordinances Oct. 2, finding that it was instead a matter for state legislation.
“Since a keg registration scheme may impose requirements and penalties on both liquor licensees and individuals possessing kegs, the issue of keg registration is a matter best addressed by the Legislature,” according to Fischer’s October letter.
He continued, “Moreover, it does not matter how precisely a keg registration ordinance is drafted. No ordinance will be proper and effective, because the ordinance will lack uniform enforcement. Thus, the registration of beer kegs is a matter that must be addressed on a statewide basis, either through agency regulation or legislative enactment.”
Under New Jersey State Law Title 33, all local ordinances regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages are subject to the approval of the director of the ABC.
According to the letter, the type of ordinance that requires the tagging or registration of beer kegs is a type of ordinance that “regulates the conduct” of licensed businesses.
The Red Bank ordinance, which was enacted May 16, required that all beer kegs sold in the borough include a “permanent identification tag.”
The ordinance also said that the keg salesperson must keep adequate records as to the identities of those who purchase kegs.
Fischer’s announcement came a month before officials in Tinton Falls began discussing their own keg registration ordinance to curb underage drinking in the municipality and neighboring municipalities.
Tinton Falls Borough Council President Michael Skudera raised some of the same objections that Fischer raised in his letter, including the possible ineffectiveness of the ordinance if not uniformly enacted across the state.
“If one town does it and the neighboring towns don’t, it’s not too effective,” Skudera said.
Fischer also addressed the penalties that may be received for noncompliance to the keg registration ordinance in some of the municipalities.
“Particularly problematic is a provision in both Belmar and Freehold’s ordinances that imposes a penalty on anyone, save a licensee or certain official, who is found in possession of an unregistered keg. The inclusion of such a violation, while likely wellintentioned, can easily become problematic if a citizen of either of those towns purchases a keg in a municipality that has no registration requirement.
“Such a citizen, if discovered, will face a penalty even if that citizen is of legal age, and the retailer that the citizen chose to patronize complied with all state statutes and ordinances of its own municipality when making the sale,” Fischer wrote.
Freehold Borough officials have discussed a keg registration ordinance but have never adopted such a law.
Fischer also used a provision from a keg registration law from Riverside to demonstrate how certain penalties enacted by the ordinances are contrary to state legislation.
“Riverside simply provides that any person found guilty of violating its ordinance may be fined or incarcerated. For other violations regarding alcoholic beverages, licensees are typically subjected to administrative penalties, such as suspension or revocation of their licenses. Thus, criminal enforcement of keg registration ordinance violations, which stem from licensee conduct similar to violations of other ordinances that provide for disciplinary hearings, is at odds with the Legislature’s goal in setting forth the penalty system …”
Fischer suggested that in the past the state Legislature has considered keg registration, but that no action was taken.
Fischer said the lack of action previously taken might indicate that the Legislature questions the need for such legislation regulating the retail sale of kegs.