Laserfiche WebLink
October 14, 1980 <br />Mr. Meister pointed out that due to the development in the Country Lakes Area, some- <br />thing will be needed in that area quickly. This would be the new development in the <br />area where the utilities have just been installed. The number of Tots in that area <br />are approximately 102. The existing well may not be able to handle this develop- <br />ment. <br />There was discussion on the many facets of this proposal with Mr. Schumacher saying <br />that he will do some research as to what funds are available and have ready for the <br />next Council meeting. <br />Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to table this water study. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion <br />carried unanimously. <br />Mr. Pearlt of the State Liquor Control Commission, was here to discuss the proposed <br />new Liquor Ordinance the Council is considering. Mr. Locher had requested Mr. <br />Pearlt to attend a council meeting to answer any questions. <br />Mr. Pearlt has gone over a copy of the proposed new ordinance. He has several comments, <br />but otherwise, he felt this was a good ordinance. <br />Subd. 1, Under Fees talked about a wine license cannot exceed one -half of the on- <br />sale liquor license or $20,000.00, whichever is less. Subd. 2, under hearings - add <br />'Or Club Liquor License.' Mr. Pearlt liked the manner in which the distances from <br />Churches and Schools was set. Subd.5 of Sec. 8, asked about restricting the sale <br />of liquor on credit - he wonderdd if this also includes major credit cards. He felt <br />this could cause a problem in restaurants or hotels. Sec. 9 - restrictions on purchase <br />and consumption - in the first paragraph 'no person shall consume liquor in any such <br />place' felt should add "unless licensed or permitted ". Sec. 10, under suspension <br />and revocation - hearing according to State Statures - has an Attorney General's <br />opinion which states that aCity does not have to hold a hearing under this law - <br />that is only -for State agencies. He suggested the language dealing with this <br />requirement be deleted. <br />Mr. Pearlt also commented on the lack of provisions for a set -up license. The State <br />Law allows up to $300.00 for this license. Prior to 1978, the State was the issuing <br />authority, but that has been changed. It must now be approved by the local governing <br />body. The Council may impose a fee of up to $300.00. <br />Mr. Jaworski asked about the discontinuing of the 3.2% beer. Mr. Pearlt said there <br />has been three attempts to get rid of the 3.2% beer. He felt that this will become <br />a reality sooner or later. <br />Mayor Gourley asked about combination licenses. There had been a Statute that says <br />you cannot issue two licenses to one person. This had been changed by the 1980 <br />Legislature. On -Sale still may only hold one off -sale. The combination license is <br />legal. <br />There was discussion of requirfing separation of on -sale and off -sale in the same <br />building - Mr. Pearlt said it is not required by State Law, however, the City may <br />require this as a part of the license requirements. <br />Mr. Locher read an amendment that he had written defining 'premises'. Mr. Pearlt <br />agreed with the context of the definition. <br />There was some discussion on the insurance problems that exists with the owners. <br />Mr. Pearlt explained this is a self insured type of l5 gram and he felt it would <br />be a good thing for the industry. <br />