06/21/1994 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 6/21/94 Spriagvale Country Club mould it become city property. The committer had no objection to this portion. The seccmd part of the legialation deals with the conseu~tion of alcoholic beverages in senior hou~g, and the commhtee had no obioe- to this portion. The third part of the legislation would allow alcoholic beverages on public grosmds for special events such as the United Federation of Labor parade on Labor Day. The cities of Parma and Euclid were contacted for ` tioa on thee' expces with this parade ffi the past. Officials of both cities bed no pr with the sale of beer a$er the parade. The committee had a split vote on this is~e with two members being ~ favor and one member dissenting. Mr. Limpert, a member of the Safeayy Committee, gave a miaority report on Ordinance 94-98. He would like Council to take more time aid give careful thought to this ordinance. He felt that the discussion of the Safety Committee had not been compieae because two members had to leave to attend another committee Wig. Mr. Limpert questioned whether a blanked clumge on the sale and contion of alcoholic beverages is needed or desired by the cis of North Olmsted. Mr. La~ert has no abjection to the sale of alcoholic beverages at Springvale Country Chtb when and if it becomes city property. On the issue of alcoholic beverages in sea-ior housing, Mr. Liert felt fleet it was too soon to discuss this issue since construction has not yet begun. On the third issue of alcohol sale and contion ffi North Opted. Park, Mr. Limpert felt that the cifiy should not change the park's safe 3' atmosphere for all timer just to serve cone-time purpose such as the Labor Day Parade. He feels that Ordinance 94-98 is very short- sighted since details on how these besvexages would be sold and co~nsumexl have not been worked out. He would h`lce to see this issue discussed in conmamnty organisations and clubs to get a feeling for the citizexes' wishes on the issue. Mr. Limpert stated that, if Ordinance 94-98 were to be pawl, rt would be imposs~le for this or any oilier Council to deny anyone use of alcohol in public parks and bw7dings. He recomds a `5io" vote on Ordinance 94-98. As the sponsor of Ordinance 94-98, Mayor Boyle felt it should be noted that it was not meant to be three separate requests. The subject of the legislation is the consumption of liquor on public property, and it should be contained m one section of the Codified Ordinances. He said that this should not be considered a specific request for Labor Day. Instead, Labor Day should be considered as a test of the legislation. Under the. provisions of the legislation, Council will always have the authority to turn down requests. For example, Council may or may not allow alcohol at Homecoming. He personally feels that adults should be treated as adults. Other cities do allow alcoholic beverages on public property and have no problems with it. For example, the City of Brook Park allows alcoholic beverages during its Homedays celebration. However, the alcohol is solo and consumed in a restricted, f~ce~d-off area. There will be restrictions made on temporary liquor permits by the State of (~io and the city Safety Director. In addition, Council may add further restrictions. He and the Safety Director are currently discussffig various restrictions that the city would impose. .- 3 i <