Opinion
No. C5-97-715.
Filed October 28, 1997.
Appeal from the Minneapolis City Council.
S. Mark Vaught, (for relator).
Jay M. Heffern, City Attorney, Dana Banwer, Assistant City Attorney, (for respondent).
Considered and decided by Schumacher, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Willis, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
This is an appeal from a Minneapolis City Council decision not to renew relator Gar-Dar's liquor license because of Gar-Dar's impropriety in operating the Mirage bar. Because Gar-Dar has failed to demonstrate that the city's investigation and hearings regarding the license renewal violated due process, we affirm.
FACTS
Gar-Dar is a corporation that owns the Mirage bar. The Mirage's liquor license expired on October 1, 1996, and Gar-Dar applied for renewal. Prior to the hearing, notice was sent to Gar-Dar to appear before the Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committee of the Minneapolis City Council. At the hearing in October 1996, Gar-Dar's attorney was told that the hearing procedures were not "set in stone" and that he could ask questions at any time. The October hearing was continued until November 1996. During the October and November hearings, Gar-Dar's attorney cross-examined the city's witnesses, made objections, and produced additional evidence. The November hearing recessed when the parties thought they may be able to reach an agreement as to how to complete the city's investigation. The parties failed to reach a resolution. Notice that the hearing would reconvene was sent to Gar-Dar prior to the March 1997 hearing date. At the March hearing, Gar-Dar refused to participate because it complained that the hearings lacked formal procedures. Only the city offered testimony. Over the course of hearings the committee heard testimony that Gar-Dar operated the Mirage in violation of city and state laws. In early April 1997, the committee submitted its written findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendation to the city council. The city council subsequently voted against renewal of the license.
DECISION
The Minneapolis City Council's decision in this case is quasi-judicial in nature. It was the product of a discretionary investigation and an evaluation of evidentiary facts. See Pierce v. Otter Tail County , 524 N.W.2d 308, 309 (Minn.App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Feb. 3, 1995).
A city council has broad discretion in determining whether to renew a liquor license, and a court's scope of review of such a determination is narrow. * * * The applicant bears the burden of proving that the city council acted in an arbitrary manner.
Bergmann v. City of Melrose , 420 N.W.2d 663, 665 (Minn.App. 1988) (citations omitted).
Gar-Dar argues that the city's decision was arbitrary and capricious because the hearings failed to provide sufficient due process protections. In Tamarac Inn, Inc. v. City of Long Lake , 310 N.W.2d 474, 476, 478 (Minn. 1981), the supreme court found that sufficient due process was given to an applicant where notice, an opportunity to be heard, an opportunity to cross-examine the city's witnesses, written reasons for the refusal to renew the license, and written findings were provided. The city provided Gar-Dar with these same protections.
At each of the hearings the city provided notice, an opportunity to be heard, to cross-examine, and to present its own witnesses. The committee received reliable evidence regarding Gar-Dar's violations that included underaged drinking, sharing of profits with non-licensed persons, and employing managers under the age of 21. All of these actions violated city and/or state laws. See Minn. Stat. § 340A.503, subd. 2 (1996) (underage drinking); Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 370.10 (1991) (underage drinking); Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances §§ 360.15 (a)(1) (1991) (licensee must be the exclusive operator); Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 267.862 (d)(1) (1991) (manager must be at least 21 years of age). Finally, the city provided written findings that outlined the above violations as its reasons for non-renewal. Gar-Dar has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that the city council abused its broad discretion when it voted not to renew Gar-Dar's liquor license.