My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1983 12 20
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1983 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1983 12 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:22 PM
Creation date
7/7/2009 2:20:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
12/20/1983
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1983 12 20
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
<br />12/20/83 <br /> <br />Page -4- <br /> <br />~IEMPORARY APPROVAL <br /> <br />Councilman Cussen moved, Councilwoman Morris <br />seconded that Waldo's be given a temporary <br />approval of their renewal of their liquor <br />license, after they have been notified by <br />letter of a liquor license hearing, until <br />January 3, 1984 at which time council will <br />either make a decision to continue or deny <br />renwal. <br /> <br />Councilman Cummings <br /> <br />Commented if we have a problem in a bar and <br />we can't make the rules, why go through the <br />formality of a hearing? <br />Attorney Rautenstraus advised that council <br />could make the rules, the point is you can't <br />make the rules until you give the owner spe- <br />cific notice that you are going to discuss <br />this with him. Rautenstraus further stated <br />that if council's policy was to have a hear- <br />ing every time on every liquor license re- <br />newal then it would be appropriate to act <br />on it without giving specific notice. The <br />policy of council has always beeen to renew <br />a liquor license without a hearing, or <br />without requiring the person to be here; there- <br />fore if the policy is changed now and act <br />without giving specific notice that's when <br />you could be in trouble. <br /> <br />Councilman Leary <br /> <br />Commented that the policy has been to approve <br />renewals without a hearing; but there has <br />been no policy established that it would be <br />inconsistent with disapproving a renewal <br />without a hearing. <br />Attorney Rautenstraus advised that the <br />Case Law and the Liquor Code specifically <br />implies that non-renewal or denial is not <br />appropriate without a hearing. <br />Councilman Leary commented since the renewal <br />applications are sent to liquor establishments <br />in ample time by the State Liquor Division, <br />they should be required to submit them to <br />council at least 6 weeks prior to their <br />expiration date. <br />Rautenstraus concurred; but stated <br />Council did not set a consistent policy to <br />deal with this. <br /> <br />VOTE ON THE MOTION <br /> <br />Question called for. 6 Ayes - 1 Nay. <br />Councilman Cummings dissenting. Motion carried <br />6-1. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.