Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MAY 11, 2011 <br />June 30th, and once they are acted on by the Council, they still need to be <br />submitted to the State Liquor Control Division for review and action. <br />Therefore, the Administrator recommended that any action relative to <br />liquor liability insurance limits be postponed until the 2012 -2013 license <br />period. In the meantime, the Administrator indicated that he would <br />research the cost of higher limits and report to the Council at a future date. <br />Mr. McGraw introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -5 -90 — ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE <br />AMENDING CHAPTER 700, LIQUOR AND BEER, OF THE <br />MUNICIPAL CODE AS RECOMMENDED BY CITY STAFF AND <br />THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS AND <br />DIRECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, SPECIFICALLY WITH <br />REGARD TO THE REASONS FOR A 3 -YEAR TENURE <br />REQUIREMENT FOR TEMPORARY LIQUOR PERMITS, AND <br />FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO <br />RESEARCH THE ISSUE OF LIQUOR LIABILITY INSR UANCE <br />LIMITS AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND <br />AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A SUMMARY <br />ORDINANCE <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Montour. <br />Ayes (5). <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />LIVESTOCK The City Administrator reported that while there is no zoning district <br />ORDINANCE in the City that allows the keeping of livestock, the City's Municipal Code <br />contains a permitting process for this use. The Administrator reported that <br />a request was recently made to the City for a livestock permit to keep a <br />goat. The Administrator reported that in order to clear up this confusion, <br />staff is recommending that an amendment to the Livestock Ordinance <br />deleting the permitting process and clearly indicating that the keeping of <br />livestock is prohibited. Given requests relative to the keeping of poultry <br />and pigeons, the City Administrator recommended that the ordinance be <br />amended prohibiting the keeping of these animals as well. <br />Keis asked if the Council should have any concerns from a religious <br />standpoint. The City Attorney noted that this is a general prohibition and <br />not related to any religious practice favoring one religion over another. <br />The Attorney suggested that if anyone brings forth a specific request based <br />on religious reasons, the Council could consider that request based on its <br />own merit. <br />8 <br />