My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Local Licensing Authority Agenda and Packet 2016 03 28
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY
>
2000-2019 Local Licensing Authority Agendas and Minutes
>
2016 Local Licensing Authority Agendas and Packets
>
Local Licensing Authority Agenda and Packet 2016 03 28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:44:11 PM
Creation date
3/30/2016 11:22:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
LLAPKT 2016 03 28
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Local Licensing Authority <br />Minutes <br />February 22, 2016 <br />Page3of6 <br />preceding the date of the complaint which resulted in the final decision to <br />suspend the license. <br />Lipton moved to approve the petition. She inquired if the Authority had to look <br />at the moneys involved before approving the petition. <br />Authority Attorney Culley noted the ordinance calls for the fine in lieu to equal <br />20% of the estimated gross revenues from the sale of alcohol beverages <br />during the entire period of the proposed suspension. She noted the applicant <br />had provided estimated revenue from last year for a seven day period. <br />Todd Stoneman, attorney for the licensee, noted he had prepared the petition <br />to pay based on the Municipal Code stating it should be based on a <br />reasonable method to calculate. He based it on a similar timeframe from last <br />year's sales and then calculated the 20% of those sales. <br />Chairperson Tennessen noted there was a motion to approve on the table and <br />called for a second. Lipton added the three findings noted by Attorney Culley <br />to her motion. Machado seconded. Roll Call Vote: Machado — yes, Lipton — <br />yes, Carlson — yes, Tennessen — yes and Hervey — yes. <br />Attorney Stoneman asked for the timeline on paying the fine. There was no <br />indication of a timeline in the Code so the Authority instructed the licensee to <br />pay before the next meeting, March 28, 2016. <br />Mr. Stoneman noted Josh Karp, owner of Waterloo was in attendance and <br />wanted to address the Authority. Mr. Karp thanked the Authority and noted the <br />acceptance of the fine was not an admission of guilt. He stated he felt the <br />Authority did not make the right decision in taking the word of patrons of a <br />different establishment over his trained staff. He noted his staff attends the <br />training provided by the Police Department and he continues to require it. <br />Authority member Lipton stated if a hearing had been held, Mr. Karp would <br />have had a chance to present his side of the story. <br />Mr. Stoneman felt he had been cut off at the last meeting when he was trying <br />to speak to the facts of the case. <br />Authority member Machado noted the licensee had reached a stipulation and <br />now wanted to tell the Authority they had made the wrong decision after <br />hearing the evidence, when in fact the Authority heard no evidence; only had <br />the police report to read and determine to order the show cause. In the report, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.