Agenda - Council - 03/28/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

666 Minn. 420 NORTH WESTERN lng restricted in the use of the premises on which such sale is licensed. Id. at 185, 56 N.W.2d at 644 (citation omit- ted). [4,5] Bergmann has failed to meet his burden of showing that requiring the oper- ation of a restaurant in connection with his liquor store was unreasonable. A city has discretion to promote its welfare by limit- ing the number of liquor licenses issued within its jurisdiction. Polman v. City of Royalton~ 311 Minn. 555, 556, 249 N.W.2d 466, 467 (1977). The city council deter- mined that the city's welfare would not be served by issuing a liquor license to anoth- er establishment just for the purpose of selling liquor. The city already has four on-sale and off-sale liquor establishments in its downtown area and does not desire a liquor-store-only operation within its bound- aries. It was reasonable for the city council to encourage the operation of a family restau- rant by conditioning the issuance of liquor licenses on such operation. Since the first liquor license was issued for the premises 13 years ago, all liquor licenses issued there 'have been predicated on the opera- tion of a restaurant. Furthermore, the city council expressly found that the city need- ed a family restaurant. The only other family restaurant burned down in 1975. Final]y, and perhaps most significantly, Bergmann agreed to the condition, both initially, when he first applied for the li- censes, and in 1982, when he provided writ- ten assurance that he would operate a res- taurant. The fact that the restaurant and bar never made a profit does not make the council's decision unreasonable. The record fails to show that the combined operation of the liquor store and the res- taurant was unprofitable. B. Unpaid Taxes and Assessments Bergmann seems to complain that the fact that the real estate taxes and special assessments were owing on the premises at the time of his application should not have barred the renewals, because the SBA was responsible for their payment. REPORTER, 2d SERIES Melrose City Ordinance 1978-1-A § 6, subd. 2, provides: No license shall be granted for operation on any premises on which taxes, assess- merits or other financial claims of the city are delinquent and unpaid. [6] Bergmann does not challenge the validity of the ordinance. In the absence of such a challenge, the private dispute between the SBA and Bergmann is irrele- vant to determining whether the city's ac- tlon was arbitrary and capricious. The or- dinance plainly requires the city to refuse a license when taxes "on any premises" are unpaid. The ordinance does not tie is- suance of licenses to the payment of taxes by any specific person, such as the owner of record. Further, Bergmann knew of the outstanding taxes and, according to the contract for deed, was responsible for pay- ing all outstanding taxes for 1980 and prior years and ail taxes subsequently levied. Because the taxes were not paid, the city council properly denied Bergmann the li- quor license renewals. Bergmann's subsequent payment of the taxes does not alter our conclusion. We must judge whether the city council's ac- tion was arbitrary and capricious on the facts existing when it acted. We conclude that the city did not act arbitrarily or capriciously but, rather, was scrupulous in selecting the procedures it used to deny Bergmann's licenses. Any rights Bergmann had were adequately pro- tected by the contested-case hearing before the AIM, followed by the city council's re- view of the evidence. II Bergmann also claims that placing the condition on his liquor licenses, but not on other licenses granted by the city, denies him equal protection of the laws under the Minnesota and United States constitutions. He suggests that the city has devised two "classes" of license holders, i.e., conditional license-holders and un. conditional license- holders.