Agenda Packets - 1988/02/08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COON FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRAT DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1988 SUBJECT: ROBERT WASTE OW -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION As you know, Robert Waste has applied for the transfer of the On -Sale Liquor License for POV's from Richard Povlitzki to himself. In investigating his application, because of the fact that he is also requesting a transfer of the Cff-Sale Liquor License for B and R Liquor from Robert and Rita Waste to Rita Waste, Staff undertook a more thorough evaluation of local ordinances and state statutes. We did this as this is the first time we have dealt with a multiple application for liquor license transfers. The Mounds View Intoxicating Liquor Code, Chapter 100, Section 100.06, (2), (f) states that an individual may not be granted or hold a liquor license, "who has an interest directly or indirectly in any other establishment in the municipality to which a license of the same class has been issued under this chapter." Mr. Waste is the fee owner of the building in which Loose Ends, a licensed on -sale intoxicating liquor establishment, is located. Upon discovering this clause of our Code, I requested an opinion frcm City Attorney Richard Meyers as to whether or nut fee ownership would he considered a direct or indirect interest in another establishment. Mr. Meyers has advised me verbally and will be following it up with a written legal opinion that it is his opinion fee ownership of a building_ having an on -sale license is an interest in another establishment and, therefore, the City would be prohibited from granting Mr. Waste's application for a transfer of the POV's liquor license. In researching the history on this provision in our Code, it was determined that this was put in place at the same time the state statutes for intoxicating liquor were revised to prohibit one person from having more than one on -sale liquor. license. This occurred in the early sixties when problems were happening with multiple license holders in the cities of Minn�apulis ar,d St. Paul. The state statute was ar..ended to eliminate this prohibition approximately five years ago and the Assistant Director for the State of Minnesota's Liquor Control Commission has advised me that they feel Mr. Waste's application for transfer does not conflict with any current stale laws. Essentially, the Council has before it two options for dealing with Mr. Waste's application. The first would be to deny the aiylication based on the provisic.: of the ordinance and thu second would be to amend the ordinance to