CC_Minutes_2008_1215 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, December 15, 2008 Page 16 Mayor Klausing opined that there were two separate issues, from his perspective: whether to renew these three specific licenses based on their non-compliance; and the broader discussion to amend the ordinance to more firmly articulate the City's intent. Mayor Klausing opined that he was concerned that the City's expectations should be clearly detailed in City Code prior to considering non-renewal on non- compliance issues. City Attorney Anderson advised that his office could draft revised language for changes in City Code, Section 302.07, specifically addressing non-renewal based on past compliance history of licensees. Councilmember Roe advised that he had no foregone conclusion in mind based on past violations when he selected these three licenses, other than their history and frequency of violations. Councilmember Willmus opined that he had personally separated out Davanni's for individual evaluation based on their past non-compliance history; and their blatant sale of alcohol while their license was suspended. Councilmember. Will- mus opined that that differentiates and changes the picture for him, and thus his request to divide the question, reiterating that liquor licenses were not a right, but a privilege; and that licensees needed to be aware that if they frequently violated the rules, they were likely to lose those privileges. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City should have a good, strong ordinance governing issuance; however, she further opined that to seek to invoke that now without a proper policy in place was not fair to those attempting to live up to the policy currently on the books, that may not provide clear guidance. Councilmem- ber Ihlan opined that she would prefer further City Council discussion on amend- ment of Code; however, she did not support taking action to deny licenses tonight. City Attorney Anderson clarified, from a legal standpoint, that the Davanni's situation had been previously addressed related to their sales during suspension; and that they had been penalized for that following negotiation and resolution by both parties. Mr. Anderson reminded Councilmembers that revocation, by State Statute, was for five years, prior to their reapplication. City Attorney Anderson advised that, if the City Council so directed, a combina- tion of penalty and/or suspension could be written into ordinance amendments. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of looking at such a provision; in addition to further City Council discussion on whether to allow licensees to opt out of City training. Councilmember Pust spoke in further support of reviewing the current tiered system, and whether the City should mandate that licensees participate in city provided training, to determine whether that was making a difference.