City Council Resolution 1970-8i~l's.i...~`•.~e,i..1.._v _.~UL:. - u.~<-,.+r. __ r~.~~_ ..~.',i'.t .. ,.~~. v 1 .. ,... ~ ~I~.tinCaltll[~y
unicipal lic,uo~ stare may annex territory containing private
~. c
icenses without invalidating the licenses'1fi~'ta~E- may renew
riv=ate "licenses. L~ ._ '~ ... 3; M.a: -1967,- §340: I3
ubd; ,", Z,_--g~4:. 26 Subd__4;_ 45_ Am._ Jurr--2d, §11.3. 3 ~v ~ ~
,~ .~'~D L' y a
February 2 3 , 1970 ~ ~;'C a ~ !' ~
T'ir, ry0'+1;.2'd Z,eciin
Ping County t~t:torney
552 E:~st ~.'hird Avenue
Pine Cit}°, Niinresota 55063
Mr. De~'aul. Ciil.1_ette
Village Attorney
Vit. ~_agCe of Olivia
i Qi{ l4Ci
Olivia, rinnesota 56277
Gentte+nen
In your letters to Attorney General Douglas M. Head you
submit the following
FACTS
The village of Olivia, h^^ a population of
2,:155, as of the ].960 census. At the present
time, the village is operating a municipal_ on
and off sale liquor establishment pursuant to
the statute. The vil_.lage is contemplating an-
nexing additional 1_ands. Located on the lands
-- cont.emp7.ated to be annexed is situated a res-
taurant whicPi .s iacil.ities for serving not
less than L00 guests zt one tune and presently
has a private on sa7_e liquor license, pursuant
to Minnesota StatuS:e 340. )_' , subd. t0. Atso
this r~rivate establishment has been c7ranted a
special license for serving of intoxicating
liquc~.rs on Sunday pursuant to Minnesota Statute
340.14, subd. 5.
O'~ESTION
(1) Upon annexation of territory containing a
restaurant holding a ~?rivate on sale license and a
special Sunday ).icense into a village which operates
a municipal on and off sale liquor store:
(a) ~Iay ' " res t ~tixant ccu~.i.nue to op~tate
under its present license +~.~- ~i1 its
renewa). date?
Kr. Howard Ledin
Mr. DePaul Wil~.ette - 2
February 23, 1970
(b) May the restaurant eontirr,~to operate and
sell liquor on Sunday pursuant to its pres-
ent .license until its date of renec•~al?
(c) May the village renew the private liquor
license and still, continue to operate its
municipal on sale J.iquor store?
(d) May the village issue a renewal, special
Sunday liquor license without authorization
from the voters of the village?
COMMENTS
The vi).).age of Olivia is concerned as to what
effect annexation would have upon the rights and
privi).eges of the m~;7ici~al. on sale liquor store
and the private restaurant which how has an on sa).e.
liquor license of which .has a).so a special. 3icense
f-or the sa).e of intoxicating liquors on Sunday.
The restaurant is .located near the newly constructed
Municipal. airport and the village is contemplating
taking this area into the vit).age but does not wish
to jeopardize, if at all. possib).e, the liquor J.i-
cense of the supper club or the municipality.
OP.'. NI ON
(a) Laws 1969, Chapter X127, Section 3 to be codified
as M.S. 1.969, § 349.1.)., Subd. 7a provides as fol.)ows:
"A .license va)_idty issued w.ittiin the number
prescribed by this section sha).~ not be subse-
quently rendered invalid or i].).ega). by reason of
any conso).idation or annexation of territory to
a city, t~i.llage, or borough, and maX thereafter
• continue to remain in effect and be renewed."
Fre assume the private on-sate iieense'he.ld by the re8tau-
rant was issued within the number prescribed by M.S. 1967,
§ 34J.1.1, Subd. 10. •Accordingly, your first question is
answered in the affirmative.
Plr. iioward Ledin
Mr. DePaul Wi.l?.ette - 3 February 23, 1970
(b) Yeur second question is answered in the affirmative
for the sama reason as the first question.
(c) M.S. 1907, § 340.1..3, Subd. 4 provides in part:
"Subd. 4. Licenses prohibited in municipal-
ities having municipal st_~~res ~.nd ?.invited to re-
tailers. E~ccept in the case of bona fide clubs
and veterans' o.rga;~izations, as authorir.ed by the
?_ast paragraph of section 340. ?_~_, subdivision ll.,
ro 'on-sG.te' or 'c,ff-sate' ~'.icense sha.t~ be directly
or indirecti y issued in any city,- •.•it] a~~e or
borough rnaintaininq its own_e,~cc?usive liquor store,
nor shal.~ such license be issued to a person who
holds a mansfacturer's o::- who.lesa'.er's .license
issued pursuant to any provision of chapter 340."
(Emphasis added.)
It is apparent that the prohibitory language of § 340..?.3,
Subd. 4 is in conflict with La•N3 ?.~6°, Chap. ?t27, Sec. 3.
t~'hile Chap. 1?_27, Sec. 3 provides far renewal of a private
license after annexation, $ 340.13 Subd. 4 prohibits any
municipality operating it: c,~n ~nunicinal. .liquor store from
issuing such a ?.icon: =.
The rule is that where two statutes conflict the Zaw
?_atest in date of final enactment shall. prevail.. M.S. 1967,
§ 645.26 Suud. 4, Accordingly, it is our opinion that
Chap. 1127, Sec. 3 creates an exception to § 340.13 Subd. 4;
and the village may renew a validly issued private license.
for. Howard L edin
Nir. DePaul Wi]'_ette - 4 February 23, x.970
(d) a assume the territory's voters suthori~ed the
issuance oi: Sunday ?.iquor licenses at an election held pur-
scant to M.S. 1967, § 340.14 Subd. 5(c). uTe further assume
that the restaurant's '"unday .liquor ?.icense teas issued sub-
sequent to an affirmative vote in that election.
A we.t?. established principle of common law requires that
after a status determined by a l.oca)_ option election attaches
to -a territory, the status subsists v~ithin the territory :~ftei~
annexation. The annexation does not affect the status of
either part of the neea po?_itical unit. 4~ Am. Jur. 2d,
Intoxicating Liquors, § 113; cases cited in 25 A.L. R. 2d 863.
According?.y, your last question is answered in the
affirmative.
Very truly yours,
DOU?LAS M. MEAD
Attorney General
Ti~OT4AS 3. SEDG'^'ICK
Snecia?. Assistant
Attorney General
DMH:TBS:dk