CC_Minutes_2006_1204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chris Miller Date: 12/04/06 Liquor Violations Bench Handout City Attorney Settlement Offers From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Scott T. Anderson [sanderson@ratwiklaw.com] Thursday, November 30,2006 1:43 PM Chris Miller Jay T. Squires Fwd: Settlement Offers on Liquor Violations Attachments: Old-Chicago-Settlement-Letter.pdf; 90786.doc ~ ~ u Old-Chicago-Settle 90786.doc (47 KB) ment-Letter.... Chris: I am forwarding to you, and through you the Council, a written settlement offer from Old Chicago and an oral settlement offer from the Green Mill, both relating to the Liquor Violation hearings coming up the second week of December. As you can see from the enclosed correspondence, Old Chicago has proposed acceptance of the I day suspension, thus dropping their request for a hearing, if the day of suspension is a Monday versus a weekend day as currently proposed. Mr. Rockenstein has set forth figures as to what he believes the proposed Monday suspension would result in lost sales. I left him a message and asked him to check with his client about forgoing any return of monies to Old Chicago from the City, in addition to the above proposal he has made. As you recall the original penalty imposed by Mr. Beets was a $500 fine and a donation offood in an amount equal to $500. He will be back to me on that tomorrow. Green Mill called with a similar offer today. Their hearing is, I believe, on the 13th (Old Chicago's is on the II th). They offered to drop their request for a hearing if the suspension could be moved from a weekend day to instead Monday January I. They not they donated close to a $1000, and noted they would not seek any reimbursement on the fine or donations if the City were agreeable to this. Consistent with my obligations as Council for the City, I am forwarding these settlement offers to the City. I would note several things in comlection with these offers. First, the entities are willing to have a suspension imposed, which would therefore make the penalties consistent with the presumptive penalties set fOl1h by City ordinance, and thus advancing the interest the City may have in imposing presumptive penalties. Second, as to Green Mill, and old Chicago if they agree with the suggestion I made in response to Mr. Rockenstein's letter, the penalties imposed would actually be greater than the presumptive penalty if the City does not return any monies to the parties given the fine and donation they already incurred (remember the presumptive penalty is a I day suspension and a $500 fine). Third, we estimate the cost of the hearings to be anywhere from $3500 to $6000 in attorney time and then additional sums, probably at least $1000, in arbitrator fees. We have been able to agree with Mr. Rockenstien iliat his client would stipulate as to the facts of the violation, thus making the only issue the propriety of the penalty imposed. We are hopeful we could do the same with Green Mill, and then perhaps see if the arbitrator would hear both matters at the same time on one day instead of two separate hearings on two separate days. Acceptance ofthe offers would result in a savings of the above amounts for the City to use for other budgeted needs. Given all of the above, we believe the COllilcil should give serious consideration to the above offers. The council knows my views on the legal arguments the establishments will raise in light of the fact that they were penalized once and then had the penalties revisited and a different and more stringent penalty imposed. I set forth the kind of arguments they will make in my memo of May 3, 2006. For ease of reference I am attaching a 1