Request By:
Bernard Keene, Commissioner
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Reid C. James, Assistant Attorney General
This is in response to your inquiry regarding Senate Bill 76 and the upcoming local option election in Ashland. Specifically, your five inquires were as follows:
1. Can a private club obtain a liquor license and if so would it be a regular private club license or the same type as other restaurants would obtain?
2. Would the other provisions of Senate Bill No. 76 apply? Mainly, could a wine restaurant license be issued?
3. Does the quota formula (one license for every 2,500 population for the county) apply?
4. If Ashland were to vote wet in accordance with Senate Bill No. 76 how soon could the entire city vote to return to the dry status?
5. Could individual precincts in Ashland vote dry? If so, how soon after the original vote?
Your first question concerned the particular license available to a private club under the provisions of SB 76. It is our opinion that since private clubs are not listed among the specific list of potential licensees, a license under the new provision would not be obtainable by a private club. The applicable provision is section 6, creating KRS 242.1293, which reads ". . . on the premises in hotels, motels and inns . . . and restaurants . . . ." Therefore, it appears to apply only to the four denominated categories. But, if the private club's restaurant facilities wished to obtain a license, they could get a regular restaurant liquor license under the new provisions pertaining to second class cities if certain qualifications were met. Firstly, the restaurant must have dining facilities for no less than one hundred (100) persons, as per new KRS 242.1293. Secondly, the restaurant must derive at least 50% of its gross receipts from the sale of food for consumption on the premises as per new KRS 242.1295.
The answer to your second inquiry also lies in KRS 242.1293. Your question regarding the issuance of a restaurant wine license appears to be covered by the language: "as to the sale of distilled spirits, wine and malt beverages by the drink . . ." Since no wine license is specifically provided for in this section of SB 76, we conclude that the applicable license is one covering liquor, wine and malt beverages as a group rather than a specific wine license.
As to your final three inquiries, these appear to be covered by prior statutes. Regarding the quota formula, it is our opinion that such system would be applicable. We can find no reason why the established quota system, applicable before SB 76 was enacted, should not apply now. The applicable quota would be determined by reference to your own regulations.
Regarding your fourth question concerning the time period of local option elections, it appears that KRS 242.030 would prohibit a subsequent election for three (3) years after the initial elecrion is held. KRS 242.030(5) provides that "no election shall be held in the same territory oftener than once in every three years."
Your final inquiry regarding whether and when individual precincts could vote dry appears to be covered by KRS 242.125(1) which states:
"If at the election for a city, the majority of the votes cast are against prohibition, the vote makes KRS 242.220 to 242.430 inapplicable to the entire city, but this does not prevent an election from thereafter being held in any precinct of the city. . ."
We construe this to mean that the precinct-wide election or elections may be held at any time subsequent to the city-wide election. subject to the prohibitions contained in KRS 242.030 regarding regular elections.
If we may be of further assistance, please so advise.