Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.b. Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Ordinance Amendment - Second Reading and AdoptionAGENDA ITEM: Off -Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Ordinance Amendment Second Reading and Adoption AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator AGErlp616 ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Letter APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to amend Rosemount City Code S ction 3 -1 -2 paragraph L.2 regarding the apportionment of intoxicating liquor licenses to remove the limit on the number of licenses that shall be granted effective July 1, 2006. 4ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting' November 15, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The City Council held a first reading of a proposed amendment to the Off -Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Ordinance at on November 1, 2005. Staff has been directed to prepare an ordinance amendment for Council consideration that would eliminate the limit on off -sale licenses. ISSUE Rosemount City Code Title 3: Liquor Regulations, Section 3 L., currently Suits the number of off -sale hquor hcenses to 1 per 6,500 population attained, as determined by the most recent Metropolitan Council population estimates The most recent Metropohtan Council estimate of Rosemount population is 17,740, meaning that two licenses may be issued. Both hcenses have been issued Based on the timing of the Metropolitan Council's release of population estimates, the earhest that a third license would be available is Apnl or May of 2006. Council review of this ordinance has considered a number of issues, including: the regulatory approach of neighboring and hke -sized communities in regard to off -sale liquor hcensing, the basis for determining population estimates as they pertain to a per hcense ratio; the pubhc interest in regulating and controlling the sale and distribution of alcohol; and economic development impacts to the community. The Council discussion has also benefited from the input of interested parties. Both current license holders have spoken in favor of maintaining the ordinance language as it currently exists Several prospective off -sale hquor business representatives interested in Rosemount have voiced support for an ordinance amendment. The proposed ordinance amendment would elunmate the limit on the number of licenses that may be granted effective July 1, 2006. This language was directed by a majority 3 -2 vote of the City Council as part of the first reading and consideration of the proposed ordinance amendment. SUMMARY This is the second reading of the proposed ordinance amendment. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE XVI.56 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING OFF -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENCES AMENDING ROSEMOUNT CITY CODE TITLE 3: LIQUOR REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Rosemount City Code Section 3 -1 -2 paragraph L2. is amended as follows: L. Apportionment of Intoxicating Liquor Licenses. 2. Off -sale intoxicating liquor licenses may be issued dependent on the population of the city of Rosemount. One off -sale liquor license may be issued for each six thousand five hundred (6,500) of city population attained, as determined by the most recent Metropolitan Council population estimates On July 1 2006 there shall be no lnmt on the number of off -sale intoxicating liquor licenses. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota the 15th day of November, 2005. Al UST: Linda jennnk, City Clerk William H. Droste, Mayor Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of 2005. To: Rosemount Mayor- Bill Droste Council members- Kim Shoe Corrigan, Mark DeBettignies Mike Baxter, Phillip Sterner 11/10/05 Dear Mayor Droste and Rosemount Council members, We are writing to you to implore you to keep the current ordinance regarding liquor licenses and population as it currently stands. When we were first notified that this subject was up for discussion we were baffled as to why. We knew full well that a third license would likely be granted in the near future. We had no problem with that. According to the population figures that came from the Met Council, Rosemount had not reached a population that would allow for a third license. It seemed self evident that since it was the Met Council's population figures that were used to compose the ordinance that is now in place, that it would again be the Met Council's figures that would determine when the population had reached a level to include a third license. To us it was a logical, obvious, and fair assumption. In listening to discussion at a council meeting, the Mayor contended that the Met Councils numbers weren't current and shouldn't be used as the population figure. This idea was brought up at different times during the discussion. It seems the Mayor was intent upon pushing the idea that the existing ordinance was in rather urgent need of being retooled. Other ideas by council members were laid on the table. Most of which had the undeniable tone of "How can we go about changing the ordinance to allow another license in Rosemount now instead of later?" We were dismayed at the tone of the discussion. Then came the kicker. City administrator, Jamie Verbrugge, suggested no limits on the amount of liquor licenses issued in Rosemount. Unbelievable. It's hard enough to fathom a Mayor and Council digging for a reason compelling enough to change the existing ordinance to allow a third license prematurely let alone comprehend the idea of allowing no limits on the amount of licenses granted in Rosemount. This suggestion was reprehensible in our minds and yet seemed a reasonable point of discussion to all of you. We have made financial decisions based on. one liquor license being added for every 8,500 increase in population. What compelling reason do you have to change the existing ordinance? We are not Ieft with an impression of a council and Mayor that are supporting existing businesses. In fact it seems you are going out of your way to not support us. The current stand the Mayor and council seems to be taking does not reflect what I have heard in the past. "We want to support our local businesses." and "We want to have open communication with our businesses." What is being proposed is in sharp contrast to the following quote by the then campaigning Bill Droste. "the city should be a partner with businesses, which is not necessarily the current environment in Rosemount." This quote was made at a forum on 9/17/02. Droste was asked "What are your top priorities if elected Who are you partnering with? The existing, tar paying Rosemount business owner of 19 years, or the people making the request that you visit this issue? We ask you to keep the ordinance as it stands, using the Met Cotmciis population figures to determine when the population has risen to a level that will allow a third license. Sincerely, Shenanigan's Fine Wine Spirits Fritz Dolejs Patricia Dolejs Sarah Dostal Shannon Allen Christina Ruzicka