City Council

(UYOf~ eKalb opportunity. innovation CALL AND NOTICE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE LIQUOR COMMISSION November 14, 2012 6:00 p.m. A special joint meeting of the City Council and the Liquor Commission of the City of DeKalb, Illinois, is hereby called for Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, of the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South 4th Street, DeKalb, Illinois. A. ROLLCALL B. CONSIDERATION Discussion on Revisions to Chapter 38 of the Municipal Code C. ADJOURNMENT This notice is given and this meeting is being called pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2, Section 2.05 ofthe Municipal Code of the City of DeKalb, Illinois. Dated: November 7, 2012 . / /r. 1}4tLV 11- to1f;f.ft- DIANE K. WRlGHT~ Clerk  t:itYOf~ eKalb opportunity. innovation DATE: November 6, 2012 TO: Mayor City Council Liquor Commission Staff FROM: Liquor Code Discussion Group SUBJECT: Liquor Code Amendments: Policy Considerations The following memo lays out the primary policy considerations that the City has before it in revising the City's Liquor Ordinance to a more simplified fashion. Once direction is provided on these issues, the next step will be to propose a draft ordinance for review by the City and licensees. Based upon small group review of the current liquor code, two primary group discussion points have been developed and are outlined below as the primary points for consideration by the City Council and Liquor Commission. Following those two primary discussion points are a number of subpoints that are proposed for changes to the Liquor Code that have been advanced based upon the preliminary review. Primary Discussion Points: 1. Should the City abandon its current "percentage of sale" restrictions? The City currently maintains restrictions in certain licenses that prohibit licensees from having more or less of their gross sales come from the sale of alcoholic beverages. As has been explained to Council in some detail, these restrictions are unenforceable with present resources, and even under the best of circumstances, very challenging to oversee. The staff recommendation is to abandon the percentage sale restrictions universally, and utilize the proposed use-based restrictions to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages. The current liquor code has provisions in it that contemplate the potential review and audit of all sales from a licensed establishment. From a practical perspective, staff  understands that this has never been don e, and would be a tremendously complicated and expensive undertaking. 2. What should the Liquor Commission's role be dermed as? This question is clearly a policy question that staff seeks direction on. The liquor commission could have nearly any role, from being eliminated as a public entity, to existing for purposes of reviewing policy considerations or proposed changes to the liquor code, to conducting disciplinary hearings, all the way to reviewing each new license application. The one caution that staff would make is that the liquor commission is a public body that can only act through official meetings and voting, which makes it somewhat inflexible in responding rapidly to urgent needs. For that reason, using the liquor commission either to conduct disciplinary hearings or to review license applications would create some practical difficulties for the City's processing of those matters. Secondary Proposals: The following points outline some of the proposed changes to the liquor code. Additional changes are also proposed, as have been presented in previous presentations to Council and the Liquor Commission. The revised liquor code will be prepared based upon these propositions. Dual Licensure for Restaurants and Bars: One proposal at the heart of the liquor code revision is the concept that a premises could have more than one license, under certain circumstances. Currently, Class E (restaurant) establishments are permitted to have a restricted bar area, open only to those 21 + years of age, where alcohol can be served without food. The bar area has to be separated from the balance of the restaurant (which is open to persons of all ages) by some physical separation, such as a half-wall. One of the proposals put forward as a component of the revision to the Code would be to permit bars and restaurants to have dual licensure. An establishment would be permitted to also have a designated area for both uses, separated by some physical separation similar to the current standards for Class E licenses. Similar to this question is the question of whether bars or restaurants should be eligible to get hospitality licenses for areas to be used as banquet facilities. Provided that the facilities are separately designated and comply with the hospitality license requirements, this may also be a concept that would be included within the licensee would be able to obtain a banquet license for a portion of an establishment used for that restricted purpose. The current proposal would be to have a licensee seeking a dual licensure pay the license fee for the more expensive of the licenses sought. Outdoor Seating Requirements: Staff has ascertained that the City had an unwritten policy of requiring any establishment that sought to have outdoor seating for consumption on premises to have such outdoor seating area be: I) contiguous to the licensed building; 2) accessible only through the building; and, 3) completely surrounded by a fence. Those restrictions, while universally enforced, are not included in the current Liquor Code. The City needs to determine which among those restnctlOns, or what additional restrictions, are appropriate to include for outdoor seating areas. There are some establishments, such as Noodles, which had sought to have outdoor seating areas but which do not meet the current 'requirements.' Noodles outdoor seating area is pictured below: The seating area is fenced and adjacent to the building, but is not accessible only through the building. Patrons exit the building, walk along the sidewalk adjacent to the parking lot, and enter the outdoor seating area. In contrast to that installation is the installation at Chipotle, which is permitted to have outdoor liquor consumption: While difficult to see on that image, the outdoor seating at Chipotle is (in theory) only accessible through the restaurant. In practice, the emergency egress gate (which is required by code) permits immediate access to the parking lot, and the three foot tall fence would permit easy passing of alcoholic beverages into the lot if desired. So while the restrictions are well-intentioned, they are not necessarily resulting in improved public safety. Separately, the City has received inquiries from establishments with Club liquor licenses who seek to have outdoor seating areas. At least some of the establishments have designated areas that are not contiguous to the building, but that they would like to fence and permit consumption within. For example, the Elks Lodge expressed interest in fencing off a portion of their grassed area to the north side of their parking lot, and permitting outdoor seating in that area:  This would not meet the current 'requirements.' The proposal that staff will proceed with drafting would be to permit outdoor consumption where: a) the outdoor consumption area is wholly fenced; b) beverages are only permitted in the fenced area; and, c) delivery of beverages to the fenced area is by establishment service staff only. License ApplicationlRenewal Fees: Based upon the direction of Council, staff has worked to develop a fee structure that would treat all licensees fairly, and would not result in undue hardships to licensees. The proposed fee structure is outlined below: License Class Current Proposed Current New Proposed New Renewal Renewal Application Application (2012) Package Liquor $2,525 $2,500 $10,000 $10,000 GrocerylDrug $3,333 $3,300 $5,150 $6,000 Small Grocery/Drug $8,079 $6,600 $10,300 $10,500 Medium Grocery/Drug N/A $9,900 N/A $15,000 Large Bar A = $2,525 $2,500 $10,000 $10,000 Restaurant E = $3,434 $3,300 $4,750 $5,000 Full Service EE = $2,725 Liquor Restaurant $2,275 $2,250 $3,275 $3,500 Low ABV Only Hospitality Hotel = $3,434 $3,300 $4,750 $5,000 Banquet ;::; " " $3,250 Bowl = $2,075 $2,450 Public Entity/ Varies Set to match Varies Evaluate on Non Profit current case by case basis. BYOB $252 $250 $250 $250 The proposal would also be to continue to incorporate an annual CPI adjustment for license fees. Other Items Proposed To Be Included in Revised Liquor Code: • Liquor License for 'Large' Grocery: Proposal to create ·a new type of grocery store liquor license, to permit larger establishments to sell liquor, with a sales floor of up to 4,000 square feet for liquor display. (Current Class D-D licensees are permitted to have 1,000 square feet, and Class D licensees are permitted to have 2,000 square feet.) Current regulations would be revised such that the square footage regulations apply to the size of the sales floorlbuilding, rather than the size of the "premises" (building + parking lot). • Banquet License Revision: The code would permit smaller establishments to obtain 'banquet' liquor licenses, either as a primary or secondary license, provided that they are conducting events on a banquet basis (contract with a single entity for a large group, in a large, common seating area, where the facility is paid for the entire group by the contracting entity (instead of per table/restaurant style charges). • Permit Package Liquor Stores to have Other Sales: Provided that they are adhering to their 21 + age limits, package liquor stores would be permitted to have other types of products available for sale. • RestaurantlBar Dual Licensure: Currently, Class E restaurant licensees are permitted to have a designated bar area, with physical separation (wall/fence) from the remainder of the restaurant, where patrons may drink without eating, like a Class A license. The revised code is proposed to have mirrored provisions, where bars could have a secondary restaurant license and allow areas for eating with appropriate security measures and physical separation; both types of licensees (bar and restaurant) would be treated similarly. • Sale of Package Liquors: Currently, Class A licensees are permitted to engage in the sale of package liquors. The revised code is proposed to continue to permit bars to engage in sales of package liquors. • Sampling/Tasting Permitted: Establishments that have. licenses permitting retail sales of package beverages would be permitted to have up to six sampling/tasting events per year, without being required to have a separate license. They would be required to comply with the City's liquor service requirements and to provide 2 weeks notice of a proposed event, but no separate license would be obtained. • Abandonment of License Number Restrictions: Currently, the liquor code includes restrictions on the number of certain types of licenses that may be issued. The revised code is proposed to eliminate those restrictions, given the changes in the types of licenses that would be issued. • Clarify Liquor License IssuancelRenewal Authority: The proposal would be to update the code to clarify that the Liquor Commissioner has the independent authority to issue a liquor license (after staff recommendation). For licenses that the Commissioner believed required additional scrutiny, they could be referred to the full Council (or Liquor Commission) for consideration. Renewal applications that are fully compliant with the Code (for licensees without code violations) could be approved administratively. • Simplify Special Events Processing: Currently, the City has an inspection protocol for nearly every catered event. For example, Fatty's caters events at the Egyptian Theater with some regularity, using a well-defined and well tested setup. If a vendor is using an established setup at a previously inspected location (and there are no temporary structures or temporary electrical services), the proposal would be to not require reinspection unless deemed appropriate or necessary by staff. • Codify Streamlined Violation Processing: The City has recently gone to use of settlement agreements to process certain liquor code violations. For violators who have a clean history but who have been found to have violated the liquor code, if the City and the licensee agree, a formal hearing can be avoided, and the licensee can pay a prescribed fine or serve a prescribed suspension. The city can also use compliance agreements to impose additional restrictions upon licensees, where appropriate. The proposal is to codify this process. Where either the City or the licensee does not wish to use the simplified process, or where the licensee has adverse events in its history (2 violations in 18 months), the traditional hearing process would be utilized. • Police Service Agreements for Special Events: The proposal is to codify the City's recent use of police service agreements for special police details at special events where, upon review of the application, the recommendation of staff is to utilize such agreements  and provide a special police detail to address unique public safety concerns (such as an event being conducted on City property, etc.). • Mirror State Liquor License Application: To the fullest extent possible, the City would utilize the actual Illinois liquor license application for the local application, instead of requiring applicants to duplicate their efforts. Any City-specific inquiries would still be handled througb a specialized fonn. • Abandon Duplicative Restrictions: The Code currently duplicates state law restrictions on happy hours and cover charges. The duplicative language does not include any new or additional restrictions. As the state regulations can be enforced locally, the proposal is to eliminate any duplicative restrictions and simply enforce the state law unifonnly.