2006_1218_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• Date: 1210A/Ob Liquor Violations Bench Handout Citv Attornev Chris Miller �ti�r.rrxnl O��eTS From: Scott T. Anderson [sanderson@ratwiklaw.carr�] Sent: Thursday, November 30,2006 �:43 PM To: Chris Miller Cc_ Jay T. Squires Subject: Fwd Settlement Offerson Liquor Violations Attachments: b!d-�hicago-Sefitl�meni-Let�er.pdf, 90786.doc L��: �� OlcK�icagaS�tie �o7ss.doc (47 �s) rr�ent-�etter.... 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 1 day suspension, thus dropping their request for a hearing, if the day of suspension is a Monday versus a weelcend day as currently proposed. Mr. Rocicenstein has set forth figures as to what he believes the proposed Monday suspension would result in lost sales. I Ieft 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 of food in an amount equal to $500. He will be bacr� 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 11 t�a). They offered to drop their request for a hearing if the suspension could be moved from a weelcend day to instead Monday January 1. 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 connection with these offers. First, the entities are willing to have a suspension imposed, which would therefore rnalce the penalties consistent with the presumptive penalties set forth 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 retu�� any monies to the parties given the fine and donation they already incurred (remember the presumptive penalty is a 1 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 �ees. We have been able to agree with Mr. TZocic�nstien that 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 of the 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 Council 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 �May 3,2006. For ease of reference I am attaching a