may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
City of Minneapolis,
Filed October 28, 1997
Minneapolis City Council
Jay M. Heffern, City Attorney, Dana Banwer, Assistant City Attorney, 300 Metropolitan Centre, 333 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2453 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Schumacher, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Willis, Judge.
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.
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.