By Jennifer Eisenbart
Editor
The City of Burlington will be able to recall liquor licenses that aren’t being used, thanks to a new ordinance unanimously approved by the City Council Tuesday night.
The ordinance will allow city staff to dismiss the ability to purchase or renew a liquor license if the business has not been open to the public for a period of at least 90 days.
The original ordinance had the time set at 60 days, but when the ordinance came up for vote at the council meeting, it got extended to 90 days due to concerns of it being too short a period.
The length of time before allowing the city to recall a license not in use was one of many issues the council discussed. There were also concerns about scaring off potential businesses, and what should come before the council once the recall process is triggered.
The city currently has two licenses that are unused – one held by the Cottonpicker and one from Coach’s. The Cottonpicker closed in the fall of 2012, and Coach’s has been closed since its operator, John Pomaville, died in a car accident in 2011.
With all of the city’s other available liquor licenses in use – including the reserve license, which came with a $10,000 price tag – the licenses are at a premium. In fact, a lengthy battle occurred a few years ago between two businesses seeking to use one that became available in 2011.
While council members worried mainly about what they thought was a short time period, both City Attorney John Bjelajac and City Administrator Kevin Lahner tried to reassure the council that the end of that period would simply create the possibly for a license recall.
“The last sentence in the ordinance says it all,” said Bjelajac. The ordinance reads that, at the end of the time frame, “the city may take steps, should it so elect, to revoke and/or fail to renew the said license.”
Lahner added that as it stands now, the council will deal with unused licenses at their annual renewal period in June.
Mayor Bob Miller added, “It’s not a hard and fast 60 days.”
There were still concerns. Alderman Jon Schultz said he wanted some assurance that new businesses would have flexibility to go beyond the originally proposed 60 days if needed. He said he was worried the tight timeframe would scare away potential new businesses.
Alderman Bob Prailes pointed out, though, “the more rules we put in, the more loopholes develop.”
Alderman Tom Vos did propose switching the timeframe to 90 days, an amendment that was seconded by Alderman Ruth Dawidziak.
That got passed unanimously.
The meeting ended in confusion. After the amendment was voted on, Miller asked if anyone wanted to discuss the ordinance further, seemingly sending it back for a second amendment that Alderman Tom Preusker had wanted to make but had been asked to add separately.
However, Preusker declined to add anything, and the ordinance was passed. Afterward, Preusker expressed confusion that the council could only add one amendment to the ordinance – and was told they could add more, but he’d declined to.
Preusker admitted he had been confused as to the process of the amendments, and the meeting was adjourned
-
-
-
-
-