CC_Minutes_2014_0127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,January 27, 2014 Page 18 would depend on the particulars of any appellate decision, one of which may be that they return the matter to the City Council for a further decision, opining that it would be his expectation if the Board of Appeals felt the transfer and renewal had some defect, that they may want this body to hash it out or bring to some con- clusion. Mr. Gaughan noted that it may be possible that the Board of Appeals may also determine that the decision should not have been made in 2013 and al- low the appeal to continue on, with a potential for the Court to determine that To- tal Wine & Spirits is not eligible for a license. City Attorney Gaughan's opinion was provided in Attachments B and C to the RCA via memoranda addressed to the City Council, and respectively dated De- cember 24, 2013, and January 23, 2014. Mayor Roe briefly reviewed protocol for testimony at this time; and called first on the Requester(s) for the stay. Tamara O'Neill Moreland, for Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd. Attorney representing Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association and Ste- phens Liquor Store, Inc. (Relators) Ms. O'Neill's written responses were included as Attachments B and D and dated December 20, 2013, and January 20, 2014, respectively. Ms. O'Neill Moreland briefly reviewed the appeal process to the City Council, and court rule requirement, addressed in her written submission providing why they believed they should grant a stay. Ms. O'Neill Moreland opined that this boiled down to public safety and the issue of their request to the court to reversed the City Council's decision and no longer have the license in existence versus having someone in the community operating under a license not validly granted. Ms. O'Neill Moreland noted that the other issue was one of security, within the discretion of the City Council and reviewable by the Court of Appeals; opining that while the City Attorney had said the action was intended to protect the licen- see, instead she referenced the City Council to the actual wording of court rules that the security was to protect he respondent (i.e. the City), and that the licensee is not a respondent unless they were to intervene in the action,but not currently or legally the respondent. Ms. O'Neill Moreland opined that the security was to pro- tect the City; and advise that they attempted to estimate those license fees that seemed to be the extent of potential damage to the City. Frank Ball, Director of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association was present, but provided no additional comment beyond those of Ms. O'Neill Mo- reland. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, and based on appellate court action, Ms. O'Neill Moreland confirmed that if the petitioners sought a stay, they needed