Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port Orchard council debates cabaret license as enforcement tool; moves to executive session
Summary
City attorneys and council members discussed whether to keep, modify, or repeal the city's cabaret license — a $100 annual regulatory license used as leverage in code-enforcement cases — and directed staff to an executive session for legal risk review before any ordinance change.
The Port Orchard City Council held an extended discussion about the city's cabaret license, an annual $100 regulatory license historically applied to establishments that serve food and offer live entertainment, and directed staff to an executive session to discuss legal risk related to applicants and enforcement.
The city attorney explained that the cabaret license has been a tool to address health, safety and occupancy concerns at venues that host live entertainment; it is not a full inspection program but can be used as leverage in voluntary code-enforcement efforts, including suspending or withholding a license while compliance is pursued. The attorney said the city moved its fire-review in-house years ago and the cabaret license currently carries a $100 annual fee.
Staff presented usage statistics: 15 applications in 2020; 8 in 2021; 10 in 2022; and nine each in 2023, 2024 and 2025. The city attorney described a long-running compliance issue involving an unpermitted gas radiant heater and related retroactive-permit work; the city did not reissue that business's cabaret license pending compliance.
Council members pressed staff on whether the cabaret license includes annual inspections (staff said it does not trigger an automatic annual inspection; inspections are complaint- or permit-driven), how the license interacts with the general business-license process, and whether removing the cabaret license would leave gaps in regulation for adult-entertainment uses. The attorney said adult-entertainment uses are regulated by zoning and that such uses are not prohibited citywide.
Several council members said they are sympathetic to businesses burdened by an additional regulatory license; others said the tool remains valuable for certain enforcement scenarios. One council member asked for the memo's list of applicants and for legal nuance about applicants' evaluation; the attorney recommended an executive session to address legal-risk details that cannot be discussed in open session.
Council moved to enter a 10-minute executive session under the statute cited in the meeting ("42 31 10, 1 I" as read on the record) to discuss legal risk. No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting. Staff offered to return with an ordinance draft if the council gives direction to expend staff resources to draft modifications.
Action: No ordinance or code change adopted; council moved into a 10-minute executive session to discuss legal risk and requested additional information before deciding whether to draft an ordinance amendment.
