Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />March 27, 1991 <br />Blesener pointed out that no one can say that the City <br />is total free of liability in these situations. <br />Blesener stated that he could not put the City at risk <br />by not requiring the liquor liability insurance. <br />Scalze pointed out that the cost of liquor liability <br />insurance with $300,000 limits on a temporary basis is <br />$300 per day. Scalze suggested that this cost would <br />double if the limits were doubled as recommended. <br />The City Administrator stated that he was not sure the <br />$600,000 limits were necessary, pointing out that the <br />key is to get the coverage so that there is defense <br />coverage in place. The Administrator felt the City's <br />greatest exposure would be the cost of defense. <br />However, exposure would increase in the case of a valid <br />claim. <br />Scalze pointed out that it was recommended that the <br />City be named as an additional licensee on the liquor <br />license. <br />The Administrator reported that he did not recommend <br />doing that. The Administrator did not feel it would be <br />a big problem for the City to be named as an additional <br />insured under the liquor liability policy. The <br />Administrator pointed out that while the State exempts <br />the holders of non-intoxicating malt liquor and wine <br />licenses from the requirement of liquor liability <br />insurance, it does not exempt the holders of <br />intoxicating liquor licenses. <br />Scalze pointed out that the survey information before <br />the Council indicates that surrounding cities do <br />require the insurance coverage. <br />Council consensus was to require liquor liability <br />insurance from temporary li~uor license holders and <br />discussed the minimum limits that should be required. <br />It was the consensus to require minimum limits of <br />$100/300,000. Council agreed that it was difficult to <br />require this expense of temporary liquor license <br />holders, however, pointed out that the Council must <br />look at the risk the City incurs in these situations. <br />Mr. Blesener introduced the following ordinance and <br />moved its adoption: <br />ORDINANCE NO. 345 - AMENDING THE LIQUOR AND BEER <br />ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF LITTLE CANADA AS AMENDED <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scalze. <br />Ayes (4) Blesener, Scalze, Collova, Hanson. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />Page 16 <br />