MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL & WPC AUTHORITY
OCTOBER 4, 2007
A SPECIAL MEETING of the City Council & WPC Authority was held on Thursday, October 4, 2007 in the Council Chambers in regard to the ordinance: Amended Ordinance Alcoholic Liquor Public Consumption.
Those in attendance included Mayor Ryan J. Bingham, City Councilors James F. McKenna, Thomas C. Jerram, Rick E. Dalla Valle, Andrew J. Slaiby, and Drake L. Waldron, and Corp. Counsel Ernestine Yuille Weaver. Councilor Marie P. Soliani was absent.
Mayor Bingham called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
AMENDED ORDINANCE ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION
On a motion by Councilor Dalla Valle, seconded by Councilor Slaiby, a discussion took place in regard to the amended ordinance alcoholic liquor, public consumption.
Patricia Fairchild, Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Commission, stated that the recommendation from the Coe Park Sub Committee and the Parks & Recreation Commission was that Coe Memorial Park not be included in the proposed Ordinance. Ms. Fairchild stated that the Commission went a step further by recommending that Fuessenich Park and the Armory be taken out of the Ordinance as well. Their reason was that it’s city property and they don’t feel the need to have alcohol in any part of any city building, parks, etc. The Commission felt the Armory, Fuessenich Park, and Coe Park are under their jurisdiction where they regulate the use of it. Their recommendation was for the Council to remove all three facilities from the proposed ordinance where alcoholic beverages may be
consumed.
Mayor Bingham noted that they can’t fulfill the Commission’s recommendation at this meeting.
Ms. Fairchild stated that the wording in the current ordinance, (that alcoholic beverages are permissible at Fuessenich Park during professional baseball games only), is not included in the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Bingham said the proposed ordinance was to add Coe Park, and that another public hearing would be necessary to remove Fuessenich Park and the Armory. If the ordinance fails Council approval, the current ordinance would stand as it is with no changes. Fuessenich Park during professional baseball games and the Armory would still be allowed.
Ms. Fairchild then stated that they would like to keep the ordinance as is.
Councilor Dalla Valle noted that they can’t remove the Armory because it’s in the original ordinance and Ms. Fairchild was right when she said alcoholic beverages were permitted at Fuessenich during professional baseball games. This proposed ordinance would open Fuessenich Park to any event held there. In order to speak in regard to the Armory and Coe Park, an entirely new drafted ordinance and public hearing would have to be held.
Councilor Dalla Valle said the Council asked that the statement on the Coe Park application be removed immediately when it was discovered in late August, but, to this day, it still hasn’t been removed.
Ms. Fairchild apologized for the statement on the form. The person copying the rules and regulations for the Armory, which has that clause, included the same clause on the Coe Park application form. She stated that they’ve had many changes in personnel in the Parks & Recreation Department and she apologized that the Commission was not on top of this paperwork. The form will continue to be discussed because they still have rules and regulations they need to include on the form, and the form is actually a “work in progress.”
Ms. Fairchild noted that the request to remove the statement never reached the Parks & Recreation Commission in August. They were supposed to schedule a special meeting to establish all the rules and regulations for Coe Park and she accepted part of the blame for not staying on top of it.
Councilor Dalla Valle asked once more that the statement be removed immediately.
Councilor Dalla Valle said, “Based on the fact that the Coe Park Sub Committee and the Parks & Recreation Commission is on record opposing this, I will take the same stand I take at every meeting in any vote from any Commission or any Committee in the city, that that’s what we appoint you to do and if that’s your wish, then that’s my vote.”
Ms. Fairchild indicated that their decision did not come without listening to every commissioner and many people on the Coe Park Sub Committee who did some research, as well as other people on hand. Their decision was based on their attempt to protect the Coe Park Trust.
Councilor Jerram asked how much latitude the Council had to change the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Bingham said the nature of the ordinance can’t be changed significantly without having another public hearing.
Councilor Jerram said he didn’t want to be selling alcohol at City Hall, or Coe Park, but he wasn’t opposed to having an affair there where people are serving hors d’oeuvres and the serving of a glass of wine as a side issue for non-profits to help attract those people who support the non-profits. The appetizers and beverages aren’t the primary drive for the fund-raiser, it’s the accommodations to those people who come for the event itself. He would like to know if they could remove the term “with the intent to sell” and replace it with the term “with the intent to distribute” wine or beer, and still stay within the parameters of the public hearing.
As Chairman of the Ordinance Committee, Councilor Dalla Valle said he didn’t think they could eliminate items from the proposed ordinance without proposing a whole new ordinance and going through another public hearing in order to allow the public to have more input. It was his belief that Councilor Jerram’s suggestion was a major change to the proposed ordinance.
Councilor Jerram said they talked about that suggestion during the October 1st meeting and it wasn’t out of the question.
Councilor Dalla Valle said it would still allow alcohol to be served in those places whether they’re selling it or giving it away, so it doesn’t change the intent.
Councilor Jerram said correct, so it’s not a big deal. There’s a difference between selling, which is for some type of business venture, and serving is some type of accommodation.
Councilor Dalla Valle didn’t agree.
Councilor Jerram said he would like to remove the ability to sell alcohol either at City Hall or Coe Memorial Park. Councilor McKenna said he thought the Commission’s position was that. Councilor Jerram’s suggestion to remove the ability to sell alcohol was not acceptable.
Ms. Fairchild said the Commission doesn’t want any possession of alcohol, whether it’s sold or distributed. They don’t want alcohol at Coe Memorial Park.
#370 Mayor Bingham gave Councilor Dalla Valle the opportunity to amend his motion.
Councilor Dalla Valle said his motion stands the way it stands.
Councilor Jerram asked what opportunity they had to come back with an amended version of the ordinance.
Mayor Bingham noted that the item would have to go back to the Ordinance Committee and the full Council for a vote to schedule another Public Hearing.
Councilor Dalla Valle said the Ordinance Committee would not be opposed to changing the ordinance, but personally, as a member of the City Council, he would have to bow to the Commission.
Councilor Jerram said he respected and valued the Commission’s opinion; however, in this scenario, he had a difference of opinion.
For clarification purposes, Mayor Bingham indicated that a vote for the motion would be a vote for a change in the ordinance; a vote against it would keep the ordinance as is.
Councilor Slaiby said he was interested in hearing what the actuaries and insurance companies said.
Margaret Keywan, member of the Coe Park Sub Committee said she called ALC in Boston, the Hartford and the Insurance Commissioner’s Office. The Insurance Commissioner’s Office said if you had property and casualty, liability and dram insurance, there was still a possibility that the insurance company could come back to the city and the Trust after they paid the claim because it’s a one day event. They all stated that the Trust could be in jeopardy once the claim was paid.
Councilor McKenna said anyone can make a subrogation claim, but whether they can actually collect is another story. He couldn’t foresee any situation in which any group or the city would be placed in a situation where it would be different from any other pourboire of alcohol within the city, which means that we would still be subject to the same dramshot limitations or any other pourboire of alcohol within the State of Connecticut.
Ms. Keywan added that the groups would also be obligated to take out insurance equal to the Trust, or $5 million for one day.
Councilor McKenna indicated that, under the current laws in the State of Connecticut, the city or any other organization would be subject to the same limits relative to dramshot liability as in any other pourboire of alcohol in the State of Connecticut, which he thought was $40,000.00. He would be hard pressed to see why any group or the city would be treated differently then any other pourboire of alcohol.
Sue Holbrook said she spoke with five attorneys on the issue of liability. She said the ordinance opens the door to the remote possibility of liability, whether it is $40,000.00 or any other amount, and the Commission doesn’t want to put the Trust in any kind of risk or jeopardy and any threat to the Trust is unacceptable to her personally, and to the Coe family as well.
Councilor Jerram said he thought they were forgetting about the type of people who will be visiting the non-profit events held at Coe Park. He thought the non-profits interested in using Coe Park and specifically the Civic Center, have patrons who probably have a much greater respect for the place they’re at and not abuse any alcoholic beverages that might be provided which would put the city in that position. He said “Even so, this ordinance was not acceptable because of the sale, if you’re telling me we can’t modify it . . . the sentence was unfinished.”
Councilor Dalla Valle asked “Not acceptable to who?”
Councilor Jerram said it was not acceptable to him. He noted that it was acceptable to Councilor Dalla Valle when he first brought it forward from the Ordinance Committee to the full Council.
Councilor Dalla Valle said the Ordinance Committee felt it was acceptable. Then the committee brought it forward as it is currently proposed.
Councilor Slaiby said he agreed with Councilor Jerram. He had always been an advocate of bringing life downtown and into Coe Park, but to put the trust in hazzard or risk is something they need to really consider. However, he’d be in favor of it if there was a way to change the ordinance. As it stands now, he couldn’t see the Council passing it with all the “ifs” surrounding it. No one knows what the intention of future City Councils will be in regard to the ordinance and how they will interpret it.
Councilor McKenna said that’s true with any ordinance so that’s not a valid reason to vote down anything.
Councilor Slaiby said if they take care of the ifs and buts, then they’ll have a better idea on how it will be handled in the future. He would be in favor of taking another look at the ordinance, and perhaps, if they’re able to change the language to secure the Trust, he’d be more in favor of supporting it.
Councilor Jerram asked Corporation Counsel Weaver how much latitude they had to make minor modifications to the ordinance.
Corporation Counsel Weaver said they could eliminate words. They were constrained to what was in the legal notice, which said they were looking at various locations for selling or distributing alcoholic beverages. It’s only for the purpose of the legal notice because those individuals who might have had another interest will now have the opportunity to be heard at another public hearing.
Councilor Jerram indicated that, under item B of the first page of the ordinance, in bold, they could remove the words “sell or,” and further down in the ordinance, it would be “may” distribute beer and wine. Was it also possible to add words like “within the four walls of the Civic Center or City Hall,” because they wouldn’t want people out in the park proper or by the fountain having a glass of wine.
Councilor Dalla Valle noted that the ordinance named Coe Memorial Park, not the Coe Civic Center, which could create a problem in moving forward.
Corporation Counsel Weaver agreed.
Ms. Keywan asked the Council how they will be able to differentiate between non-profits.
Councilor Jerram indicated that applicants will need City Council approval for every event.
VOTE TO DENY #800
The Council voted unanimously to deny the motion in regard to the amended ordinance alcoholic liquor, public consumption.
ADJOURNMENT #810
On a motion by Councilor McKenna, seconded by Councilor Dalla Valle, the Council voted unanimously to adjourn at 6:24 p.m.
CAROL ANDERSON
Recording Secretary
| 
