Restaurant owner interested in license for bowling alley

Can a businessman hold an interest in more than one liquor license in Powell?

That’s a question the Powell City Council will consider in coming weeks.

The issue arose Monday after Kyle “Brock” Ninker and Steve Nielson asked the city for clarification on a liquor license ordinance.

Ninker is a co-owner of Hansel and Gretels, and he and Nielson are interested in applying for a restaurant liquor license for the bowling alley, which they plan to purchase this spring.

However, a city ordinance prohibits a person from owning or acquiring an interest in more than one liquor license. It bars partners, shareholders, corporations or firms “already owning an interest in an existing liquor license of any category” from getting another license.

“So you couldn’t be a partner in two restaurants, basically, if they both have liquor licenses,” said Councilman John Wetzel during Monday’s council meeting.

“That’s what our ordinance says,” said City Attorney Sandra Kitchen.

State law allows a person to have an interest in multiple liquor licenses, as long as each license is issued to a separate corporation or LLC (limited liability company). But “our ordinance is more restrictive,” City Clerk Tiffany Brando said during Monday’s meeting.

Councilman Josh Shorb asked what happens if someone owns three Pizza Huts in Cheyenne, and they all have liquor licenses.

Each restaurant would have to be owned by a different LLC or corporation, Brando said.

Ninker said Wednesday that he has no intention to combine Hansel and Gretels and the bowling alley. He said they would remain separate entities, and the restaurant liquor license application for the bowling alley would be under a separate LLC.

Ninker said Nielson, who is his stepdad, will be the “heart and soul” of the bowling alley business, while Ninker will serve in a consulting role.

They have not yet applied for a restaurant liquor license and were just seeking clarification on the city law this week.

Councilman Wetzel noted the current city law also requires some disclosure of how businesses are set up.

“I can see where this might already exist within the city right now, and you might not know about it,” Wetzel said.

Councilman Eric Paul said he supports adopting the state statute and repealing Powell’s more restrictive ordinance.

“Other than somebody monopolizing the liquor business in Powell, I don’t see the need for the restrictiveness that we have,” said Paul, adding that he couldn’t really envision that scenario.

Councilman Shorb agreed, adding that the City Council still would have to approve any liquor license requests.

“If someone wants to go out there and expand their operations, I don’t know why we would want to limit that,” Shorb said.

Kitchen said she will bring a proposed ordinance before the Powell City Council to repeal the existing city ordinance, 5.08.110 in city code, that restricts the number of liquor licenses. Councilmen must approve any ordinance three times before it becomes law.

Ninker said he’s glad to see councilmen’s support for repealing the ordinance.

He has a lot of great memories from the bowling alley, since he often spent time there growing up when his grandmother worked there. He said he wants to see the tradition of a bowling alley in Powell continue.

Ninker said a restaurant liquor license makes sense for the establishment, since they plan to serve more food than alcohol.

Brando said the city has at least four restaurant liquor licenses available. With that license, a restaurant’s sales must be at least 60 percent food, and the remaining 40 percent can be alcohol sales. The restaurant license allows the business to serve any type of alcohol, but it cannot have an actual bar or liquor store, Brando said.

The city does not have any retail liquor licenses available at this time.

Shorb asked if anyone knew the history of the city’s liquor license law and why it’s more restrictive than state law.

Kitchen said the law has been on the books as long as she has been with the city.

“It could be because we had so few liquor licenses way back when — if we only had five licenses, you didn’t want one person having control over three of them,” Brando said.