Laserfiche WebLink
Humphrey: <br /> <br />Gr~.ffiths: <br /> <br />Sis.k: <br /> <br />Gri. ffiths: <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />power that the Liquor Licensing <br />Authority would have until the next <br />renewal period, would be to either <br />suspend or revoke the license after <br />it is renewed. You would not have a <br />right to impose some kind of a <br />probationary period .... So you have <br />to either suspend or revoke. That <br />would be the only authority .... <br /> <br />No, I agree, I think, it, it to <br />expand on that, what that means that <br />six months from now, if there are <br />recurring incidents of concern to <br />the Police Department and to the <br />Authority, then a motion could be <br />filed or action could be taken to <br />suspend or revoke the license at <br />that time. That would serve the <br />same purpose as having a shorter, <br />for all practical purposes, is <br />serving a shorter probation period, <br />shorter than one year. <br /> <br />Let me just add to that: I think, <br />while that is true, it does perform <br />the same, a similar function. The <br />evidence I believe that's necessary <br />to establish a suspension or a <br />revocation, certainly is somewhat <br />different than that necessary to a <br />non-renewal of an existing license. <br />So I'm not sure that you have the <br />same level of evidence necessary <br />before you to make a decision on a <br />suspension or revocation. <br /> <br />Susan, would it also be fair to say <br />that if the application was allowed <br />for the next year that basically <br />anything that existed prior to <br />October 6, or October 5, 1993 would <br />not be considered. It would only be <br />incidents after that time. <br /> <br />I think generally that would be <br />correct, yes. <br /> <br />Any further Council comments? We'll <br />have a roll call on the motion <br />please. <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br /> <br />