PUBLIC PROTECTION CABINET
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
(Amendment)
804 KAR 9:050. Retail[drink]
liquor drink license quota.
RELATES TO: KRS 241.060, 241.065, 241.075, 243.030
STATUTORY AUTHORITY: KRS 241.060
NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY: KRS 241.060(2) authorizes the board to limit the number of licenses of each kind or class to issue in this state or any political subdivision, and restrict the locations of licensed premises. This administrative regulation establishes retail liquor drink license quotas in cities which have become wet pursuant to KRS 242.125 separately from their respective counties which remain dry.
Section 1. Danville, which repealed prohibition on March 2, 2010, shall have a quota of six (6) retail liquor drink licenses.
Section 2. Radcliff, which repealed prohibition on October 4, 2011, shall have a quota of eight (8) retail liquor drink licenses.
Section 3. Somerset, which repealed prohibition on June 26, 2012, shall have a quota of five (5) retail drink liquor licenses.
Section
4. Murray, which repealed prohibition on July 17, 2012, shall have a quota of
seven (7) retail liquor drink licenses[The express provisions of KRS
241.060(2) enable the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to limit the number of
licenses to be issued in any political subdivision of the state and permit the
board to make reasonable division and subdivisions of the state or any
political subdivision into districts for this purpose. 804 KAR 9:010
establishes a general retail liquor license quota based upon county population
for any area within that county in which prohibition has been repealed. Instances
may arise, however, in which the quota based on county population permits the
issuance of retail liquor licenses in a number totally disproportionate to the
population of the area in said county in which prohibition has been repealed. It
is, therefore, necessary for the board to establish individual quotas when such
a situation as above described arises.
Section
1. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Board may, for good reason shown, adopt by
administrative regulation retail liquor license quotas for political
subdivisions less than a county where the county quota established by 804 KAR
9:010 would be excessively disproportionate to that based upon the population
of the smaller political subdivision. In such instances, the quota set in 804
KAR 9:010, Section 1(1) and (2), shall be inapplicable. The quota exceptions contained
in 804 KAR 9:010, Section 2(1), (2), (3), and (4), shall remain in effect and
be incorporated herein.
Section
2. Pursuant to the authority herein, the City of Pikeville, having been
elevated to third class status by the 1984 session of the Kentucky General
Assembly, the actual resident population of the City of Pikeville being at
least 8,000 by virtue of its reclassification to a city of the third class and
the resident population of Pike County being 86,307 according to the population
projections of the Kentucky State Data Center, Urban Studies Center of the
University of Louisville, Kentucky, it is determined that the retail drink
liquor license quota established according to 804 KAR 9:010 would create a
permissible number of retail drink liquor licenses excessively disproportionate
to the population of the City of Pikeville, the retail drink liquor license
quota for the City of Pikeville, Kentucky, is therefore set at eleven (11)].
TONY DEHNER, Acting Commissioner
ROBERT D. VANCE, Secretary
APPROVED BY AGENCY: February 12, 2013
FILED WITH LRC: February 12, 2013 at 3 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: A public hearing on this administrative regulation shall be held on Friday, March 22, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., EST, at the Kentucky Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 1003 Twilight Trail, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. Individuals interested in being heard at this hearing shall notify this Department in writing by Friday, March 15, 2013, five working days prior to the hearing, of their intent to attend. If no notification of intent to attend the hearing is received by this date, the hearing may be cancelled. This hearing is open to the public. Any person who wishes to be heard will be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed administrative regulation. A transcript of the public hearing will not be made unless a written request for a transcript is made. If you do not wish to be heard at the public hearing, you may submit comments on the proposed administrative regulation. Written comments shall be accepted until April 1, 2013. Send written notification of intent to be heard at the public hearing or written comments on the proposed administrative regulation to the contact person.
CONTACT PERSONS: Stephen B. Humphress, General Counsel, Sam Crain, Paralegal, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 1003 Twilight Trail, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, phone (502) 564-4850, fax (502) 564-7479.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS AND TIERING STATEMENT
Contact Persons: Stephen B. Humphress, Sam Crain
(1) Provide a brief summary of:
(a) What this administrative regulation does: The amendment to this administrative regulation establishes a retail liquor drink license quota for each of the following cities: Danville, Radcliff, Somerset, and Murray. The amendment also removes the retail liquor drink quota for the city of Pikeville because Pikeville went from a third to fourth class city.
(b) The necessity of this administrative regulation: The existing administrative regulation establishes the number of quota licenses for cities based on population and monopoly avoidance while a different regulation, 804 KAR 9:010, establishes county quotas. The amendment to this administrative regulation provides the necessary retail liquor drink license quotas for the following cities which have recently voted wet: Danville, Radcliff, Somerset, and Murray. It also eliminates the quota for the city of Pikeville.
(c) How this administrative regulation conforms to the content of the authorizing statutes: KRS 241.060(1) authorizes the board to promulgate administrative regulations. KRS 241.060(2) authorizes the board to limit in its sound discretion the number of licenses of each kind or class to be licensed in this state or any political subdivision, and restrict the locations of licensed premises. To this end, the board may make reasonable division and subdivisions of the state or any political subdivision into districts. Administrative regulations relating to the granting, refusal, and revocation of licenses may be different within the several divisions or subdivisions.
(d) How this administrative regulation currently assists or will assist in the effective administration of the statute. The amendment to this administrative regulation enables the board to execute its KRS 241.060(2) duty by setting quotas for newly wet cities situated in dry counties.
(2) If this is an amendment to an existing administrative regulation, provide a brief summary of:
(a) How the amendment will change this existing administrative regulation: The proposed administrative amendment will establish the quota for retail liquor drink licenses in the following cities which recently voted wet: Danville, Radcliff, Somerset, and Murray. It will also eliminate the quota for the city of Pikeville.
(b) The necessity of the amendment to this administrative regulation: This administrative regulation is needed to establish the quota for retail liquor drink licenses in cities which have recently voted wet although the county remained dry. A different regulation, 804 KAR 9:010, sets the liquor package license quota for a county that votes wet based on the county’s population and a ratio of one license per 2500 residents. That regulation does not address, or set, a license quota for city local option elections when the county remains dry. When a city votes wet but county remains dry, the Board amends the current regulation, 804 KAR 9:050, to set specific quotas for each wet city. The existing regulation satisfies Due Process by codifying the retail liquor drink license quota for wet cities situated in dry counties. The proposed amendment will update the regulation by setting quotas for newly wet cities situated in dry counties. The quotas for wet counties are set by a different regulation, 804 KAR 9:010, which uses a population ratio of one license per 2500 residents.
(c) How the amendment conforms to the content of the authorizing statutes: KRS 241.060(2) allows the Board to limit the number of licenses of each kind or class to be issued in any political subdivision. The amendment will establish a quota for retail liquor drink licenses in the cities of Danville, Radcliff, Somerset, and Murray, based primarily on each city’s population and a 1/2500 ratio.
(d) How the amendment will assist in the effective administration of the statutes: The amendment will establish the number of retail liquor drink licenses that may be issued in the cities of Danville, Radcliff, Somerset, and Murray, proportionate to territory population.
(3) List the type and number of individuals, businesses, organizations, or state and local governments affected by this administrative regulation: This administrative regulation will affect the Kentucky Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control ("Department") by providing a limited number of retail liquor drink licenses that may be issued to newly wet cities. It will affect the cities of Danville, Radcliff, Somerset, and Murray. A retail liquor drink license permits a business to operate a liquor drink store. No liquor drink stores exist until a city votes to become wet. As this amendment to the regulation sets quotas for cities that are newly wet, no existing businesses will be affected. This administrative regulation deletes section 2 and eliminates the quota for the city of Pikeville. Pikeville is now a fourth class city and as such cannot be issued retail liquor drink licenses.
(4) Provide an assessment of how the above group or groups will be impacted by either the implementation of this administrative regulation, if new, or by the change, if it is an amendment: The impact of this administrative regulation will be minimal because the Department already issues state licenses and enforces alcohol laws and cities already issue city licenses.
(5) Provide an estimate of how much it will cost to implement this administrative regulation:
(a) Initially: No extra costs are anticipated to implement this administrative regulation amendment.
(b) On a continuing basis: None.
(6) What is the source of the funding to be used for the implementation and enforcement of this administrative regulation: Agency funding is used for the implementation and enforcement of the administrative regulation.
(7) Provide an assessment of whether an increase in fees or funding will be necessary to implement this administrative regulation, if new, or by the change, if it is an amendment: There is no anticipated increase in fees or funding necessary to implement this administrative regulation amendment.
(8) State whether or not this administrative regulation establishes any fees or directly or indirectly increases any fees: This administrative regulation amendment does not directly or indirectly increase any fees.
(9) TIERING: Is tiering applied? No tiering is applied. There are no costs associated with administering this administrative regulation.
FISCAL NOTE ON STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
1. State what unit, part, or division of local government this administrative regulation will affect. The Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control’s licensing division will be required to process all applications and licenses issued by this administrative regulation. The cities of Danville, Radcliff, Somerset, and Murray, are already required to process all applications and issue alcoholic beverage licenses in their respective cities.
2. State, in detail, the aspect or service of local government to which this administrative regulation relates, including identification of the applicable state or federal statute or regulation that mandates the aspect or service or authorizes the action taken by the administrative regulation. There should be no effects of this administrative regulation amendment on the service of local government. This amendment to the administrative regulation should not affect any aspect or service of local government.
3. Estimate the effect of this administrative regulation on the expenditures and revenues of a local government for the first full year the administrative regulation is to be in effect. If specific dollar estimates cannot be determined, provide a brief narrative to explain the fiscal impact of the administrative regulation. Under KRS 243.070(2)(c), the city of Danville could receive up to $4,800 annually ($800 per license) if six retail liquor drink licenses were issued. Under KRS 243.030(8)(c), the state would receive $3,600 annually ($600 per license) if six (6) liquor drink licenses were issued in the city of Danville. Under KRS 243.070(2)(a), the city of Radcliff could receive up to $7,000 annually ($1,000 per license) if seven retail liquor drink licenses were issued. Under KRS 243.030(8)(b), the state would receive $7,000 annually ($700 per license) if seven liquor drink licenses were issued in the city of Radcliff. Under KRS 243.070(2)(c), the city of Somerset could receive up to $4,000 annually ($800 per license) if five retail liquor drink licenses were issued. Under KRS 243.030(8)(c), the state would receive $3,000 annually ($600 per license) if five liquor drink licenses were issued in the city of Somerset. Under KRS 243.070(2)(c), the city of Murray could receive up to $5,600 annually ($800 per license) if seven retail liquor drink licenses were issued. Under KRS 243.030(8)(c), the state would receive $4,200 annually ($600 per license) if seven retail liquor drink licenses were issued in the city of Murray.
Note: If specific dollar estimates cannot be determined, provide a brief narrative to explain the fiscal impact of the administrative regulation.
Revenues (+/-):
Expenditures (+/-):
Other Explanation: Additional costs to administer these regulatory changes at the local government level for this year or subsequent years should be minimal or none.