Court Opinion

ID: 9564202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:56:03.645648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:16.714101
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LOHR
dissenting:
Adams County Golf, Inc. (Adams, Inc.) is a creation of, and is wholly controlled by, Adams County.1 The majority holds that the executive director of the Department of Revenue (Department), as state licensing authority under the Colorado Beer Code,2 is authorized to issue a retail license for sale of fermented malt beverages (3.2% license) to Adams, Inc. Indeed, the majority holds that the Department’s refusal to issue such a license solely because of the relationship between Adams, Inc. and Adams County is arbitrary and capricious. I respectfully dissent.
In order to make retail sales of fermented malt beverages in Colorado, it is necessary to obtain a 3.2% license from the Department and from the local licensing authority. Sections 12-46-102, -105, -117, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5). In this case the local licensing authority is the board of county commissioners of Adams County. Section 12-46-103(4), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5). A licensee may be “any person, partnership, association, organization, or corporation” meeting certain qualifications and conditions. Section 12-46-108, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5). The Colorado Beer Code does not address specifically the question *427whether a 3.2% license can be issued to a local licensing authority or to an organization controlled by such authority.3
A review of the many duties imposed by the Colorado Beer Code upon a local licensing authority illuminates the issues involved in determining whether Adams, Inc. can be granted a 3.2% license. In considering an application for a license, the local licensing authority must determine the good character and reputation of the applicant. Section 12-46-108(l)(b), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5). It must consider “the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the inhabitants.” Section 12-46-108(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5). It may suspend or revoke a 3.2% license for cause. Section 12-46-107, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5). It may make reasonable rules and regulations with respect to sale of fermented malt beverages. Section 12-46-106(10), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5). County officials must enforce every provision of the Colorado Beer Code within their jurisdiction. Section 12-46-106(5), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5).4 The local licensing authority may be called upon to act on applications for other 3.2% licenses in the neighborhood and in doing so must consider whether the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are being met. Section 12-46-108(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5). The seriousness of the conflicts of interest which are created if the local licensing authority may also be a licensee needs no further elaboration.
The local licensing authority is vested with broad discretion. See City of Manitou Springs v. Walk, 149 Colo. 43, 367 P.2d 744 (1961). Judicial review of any decision of a local licensing authority denying a license is limited to determination of whether the refusal was arbitrary and without good cause. Section 12-46-118, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5).
It is presumed that the legislature in enacting a statute intended a just and reasonable result. Section 2-4-201 (l)(c), C.R.S. 1973. If a statute is ambiguous, the court, in determining the legislative intent, may consider the object sought to be attained and the consequences of a particular construction, among other things. Section 2-4-203, C.R.S. 1973. Here the question, posed in starkest form, is whether the county can grant a 3.2% license to itself.5 We cannot blind ourselves to the fact that the county is the proposed licensee simply because the county has used a non-profit cor-*428portion wholly controlled by itself.6 The statute does not specify whether a county can be a licensee, and is ambiguous in that respect.7 In light of the conflicting interest which will exist if the county could be a licensee; the potential adverse effects which such conflicting interest could have on the administration of the Colorado Beer Code and on public confidence in impartial administration; and the principles of statutory construction referred to above, I would hold that Adams, Inc., a corporation wholly controlled by Adams County, is not an authorized licensee under section 12-46-108(1), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5), and would reverse the judgment of the district court.
I am authorized to say that Justice Dubofsky joins me in this dissent.

 This was a finding of fact by the officer of the Colorado Department of Revenue and State Licensing Authority who conducted the hearing on Adams, Inc.’s application for a retail license for sale of fermented malt beverages. A review of the record reflects that the finding is supported by admissions made by applicant’s attorney during the course of the hearing.

 Sections 12-46-101 to 118, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5).

 The powers of a county are exercised by its board of county commissioners. Section 30-11-103, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1977 Repl. Vol. 12).

 This duty is shared with sheriffs, police, and peace officers. This in no way lessens the independent duty of the county officials.

 A license must be obtained from the local licensing authority and from the Department. If a county cannot be granted a license by the former, it follows that it cannot be granted a license by the latter. No useful purpose would be served by any other conclusion.

 Adams County has engaged in no subterfuge in utilizing Adams, Inc. in this matter. The county’s attorney candidly acknowledged during the hearing that Adams, Inc. is controlled by the county. It is the county’s contention that such activity is fully consistent with the Colorado Beer Code.

 A county is “a body politic and corporate.” Section 30-11-103, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1977 Repl. Vol. 12). It is by no means clear that this is the type of “corporation” referred to in section 12-46-108, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 12); i.e., a corporation “incorporated pursuant to the laws of the state of Colorado or duly qualified to do business in the state of Colorado.”