Nine, Inc. v. City of Brookings, 797 N.W.2d 73

Nine, Inc. d/b/a 9 Bar and Nightclub; GDT, Inc. d/b/a Cubby’s Sports Bar & Grill; Skinner’s, Inc. d/b/a Skinner’s Pub (plaintiffs) operate in Brookings and hold operating agreements to sell alcohol.
Plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment challenging Brookings’s fee for new on-sale full-service restaurant licenses as violative of SDCL 35-4-117 because it was based on population, not market value of existing licenses.
Brookings, a local option community, adopted an ordinance and resolution setting the new license fee at the minimum population-based amount ($18,504) under SDCL 35-4-116.
The 2008 legislation created new on-sale licenses and referenced market value under SDCL 35-4-117; questions arose whether operating agreements were to be treated like licenses for purposes of the statute.
South Dakota’s 2009 amendment SDCL 35-4-19.1 clarified that each operating agreement holder is a license holder for applying the new licensing statutes; retroactivity was argued but became moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brookings correctly set the fee under 35-4-116 and 35-4-117.	Brookings treats operating agreements as licenses for market-value pricing.	Brookings contends operating agreements are akin to leases, not licenses, so population-based fee is correct.	Operating agreements are licenses for pricing; fee must reflect market value.
Does SDCL 35-4-19.1 apply retroactively?	Amendment clarifies existing law; applies to determine rights under prior act.	Retroactivity unclear; not applicable to moot issue.	Retroactivity moot; amendment clarifies law and supports prior interpretation.

In re Farmers State Bank of Viborg, 466 N.W.2d 158 (S.D. 1991) (interpretation of subsequent amendments clarifies intent)
Ellis v. City of Yankton, 526 N.W.2d 124 (S.D. 1995) (use of amendments to glean legislative intent)
Perdue, Inc. v. Rounds, 2010 S.D. 38, 782 N.W.2d 375 (S.D. 2010) (statutory construction; de novo review)