Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulatory Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council holds codification of alcohol ordinances for two weeks after members raise concerns about affected licensees
Summary
A substitute ordinance to codify and amend alcohol beverage provisions (Ord. 5934) was presented but the council voted to hold the item for two weeks to allow more review and outreach after council members and external stakeholders raised concerns about businesses with existing licenses.
A substitute ordinance to codify and amend the City's alcohol provisions (Ordinance 5934) was presented to the council on April 8 but was held for two weeks after members requested more time to review stakeholder impacts and legal implications.
Attorney Wade, who explained the proposed recodification, said the ordinance is primarily a codification of the city's 1985 code and that it expressly repeals a small set of obsolete provisions (for example, prohibitions tied to facilities that no longer exist or are under different control). He told the council the long‑standing 1,500‑foot restriction that limits liquor sales near churches, schools and parks remains in effect and that the substitute ordinance does not change that restriction.
Council discussion turned to the status of businesses that recently received certificates of compliance from the Alcoholic Beverage Commission and to whether codification might have retrospective effects. Attorney Wade told members the codification does not change prior legal rights and that disputes over specific license applications or alleged errors by the Alcoholic Beverage Commission are matters for the chancery court, not the council.
Several council members, including Smiley and Warren, asked for more time to consult with affected business owners and legal counsel. An applicant's representative, James McLaren, said his client had entered a long lease and invested approximately $1 million to develop a former retail site after receiving a certificate of compliance; he requested that the council consider grandfathering relief where predecessors had done so in past recodifications.
Outcome: by a council vote on a "special item 1" motion, members agreed to hold the ordinance for two weeks and revisit it at the April 22 meeting. The council did not adopt the substitute ordinance at this meeting.
Ending: the council will receive additional information during the hold period; Attorney Wade reiterated that the codification is intended to make the municipal code accurate and that questions about previously issued compliance certificates remain for the Alcoholic Beverage Commission and the courts.
