My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-22-95 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
11-22-95 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:38:55 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:57:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVII~tBER 22, 1995 <br />not been increased since 1982, but felt there was <br />nothing wrong with keeping the fee at the level it is. <br />Vitale reported that expenses have gone up, happy hours <br />have cut into profits, businesses pay false alarm fees <br />and property taxes have increased. <br />Tom Duray, Hoggsbreath, stated that he was not opposed <br />to an increase, but felt that $500 for each of the next <br />three years was too much. Duray pointed out that there <br />has been a steady decline in the liquor industry since <br />1986 due to raising the drinking age to 21 and tougher <br />DWI laws. Casinos have also hurt business. Liquor <br />businesses have also seen increases in property taxes <br />and prices from suppliers. Duray stated that he <br />realizes there has not been an increase since 1982 and <br />that surrounding cities are charging higher license <br />fees. However, felt the Council must consider how <br />difficult it is for a liquor business to make a profit. <br />Scalze asked if Duray felt the license fee should be <br />based on square footage. <br />Duray stated that he did not favor any increase. <br />However, he would lean toward basing the fee on square <br />footage. Duray did not feel it fair that the smaller <br />establishment paid the same fee as the larger one. <br />Duray suggested that perhaps the fee remain where it is <br />for the smaller establishment, and a formula be <br />developed based on square footage for the larger <br />businesses. Again, Duray acknowledged that it has been <br />a long time since license fees were increased, however <br />profits have decreased in that same time period. <br />JoJo Vitale did not feel that the need for increased <br />revenue should be directed toward a specific group of <br />business people. Vitale felt that if there was a need <br />for increased revenue, everyone in the City should have <br />to pay for it. Vitale pointed out that decreased <br />profits mean that employees will not be able to get <br />salary increases. <br />There was no one else from the general public present <br />wishing to speak on this matter. <br />Upon motion by Fahey, seconded by Morelan, the public <br />hearing was closed. <br />Fahey noted that the liquor license fee has not been <br />increased since 1982. Fahey stated that the first <br />question is whether an increase is appropriate and <br />necessary. Staff is proposing an increase in order to <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.