My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-26-1990 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
12-26-1990 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2014 10:17:29 AM
Creation date
7/19/2013 11:10:18 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
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
DEC -21 -1990 12 :54 FROM SWEENEY z"\ BORER <br />Mr. Joel R. Hanson <br />December 21, 1990 <br />Page Two <br />TO LITTLE - CANADA P.O3 /24 <br />to business qualifying for either an "On -Sale A Restaurant " or <br />"On -Sale B Tavern" license. Chapter 704 covers special on -sale <br />wine licenses, which are covered in the present ordinance under <br />Chapter 703.170. The present fee for an on -sale wine license <br />under the existing ordinance is $100.00. State law allows a <br />license fee of up to 1/2 of the license fee for an on -sale <br />intoxicating liquor license, which in this case would allow a <br />fee of up to $1,125.00. <br />In your memo to the City Council on June 22, 1990, you <br />listed the following four (4) issues to be addressed in the <br />revision of the licensing ordinance: <br />(1) Bonding requirements; <br />(2) Suspension and revocation procedures; <br />(3) Sale of strong beer in conjunction with a wine <br />license; and <br />(4) Liquor liability for special events. <br />The enclosed ordinance reflects conclusions as to each of <br />these issues. First, the State Legislature eliminated the <br />requirement of a bond for liquor licenses during the 1989 <br />Legislature. Minnesota Statutes §340A.412, Subdivision 1, <br />previously required a bond for all intoxicating liquor licenses, <br />but was repealed. Our conclusion is that a bond requirement is <br />of little or no benefit, especially in the amounts presently <br />provided for in the Ordinance. It remains within the discretion <br />of the City Council to require such a bond. However, we believe <br />that requiring that all liquor licensees are properly insured is <br />of far greater significance. <br />Revocation or suspension procedures are presently provided <br />for in Chapter 703.150. The procedures for suspension and <br />revocation, and the possible penalties for violating the <br />conditions of the license are set forth in Chapter 702.110 and <br />Chapter 703.180. Please note that I have incorporated into the <br />revocation and suspension procedures an automatic revocation or <br />suspension upon the lapse of required dram shop insurance. We <br />do not recommend the inclusion in the Ordinance of detailed <br />procedural requirements. A licensee is generally entitled to a <br />hearing before the City Council prior to revocation or <br />suspension and such a revocation or suspension must be based <br />upon a violation of one of the conditions of the license, as set <br />forth in Sections 702.070 and 703.100. <br />Page 51 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.