By Molly Hunter
The Iowa City City Council on Tuesday considered, for the first time, an amendment that would lighten the penalties faced by certain businesses after illegally selling alcohol to a minor.
The council backed the amendment, 7-0; it must be approved on two more votes to be adopted.
“The penalties are excessive and beyond what is needed to correct that behavior,” said City Manager Geoff Fruin.
The proposed amendment to the 21-ordinance would shorten the review and revocation periods concerning instances in which establishments with exception certificates sold alcohol to minors. This means that after the illegal sale, there would be less time to bring action against the business and its exception certificate would be revoked for a shorter period of time.
Exception certificates are most often granted to establishments that are not primarily focused on the sale of alcohol but in which alcohol is available. Such an exception allows the business to continue accepting patrons under the age of 21 after 10 p.m., which is when most bars are required to kick out those underage.
Since revocation of a business’s liquor license is a matter decided at the state level, not the local one, the amendment deals solely with the revocation of the exception certificate.
The changes discussed largely revolved around the exception certificate revocation period.
Currently, the revocation can last anywhere from several months to five years, Fruin said. The amendment would change that, shortening the penalty to a one- to two-year period.
The amendment would also change the process in which legal action is brought against an offending business. On the first offense, businesses would receive a warning. This presents no change from the current ordinance. However, the second failure would result in a 30-day loss of the business’ exception, and the penalty for a third infraction would be a 90-day loss.
As things stand now, two or more illegal sales of alcohol to an underage patron over a five-year period results in the loss of the exception.
Fruin said, however, the Partnership for Alcohol Safety was not able to vet the amendment. He said the reason the amendment was brought before the council was because two more area businesses were about to fall subject to the current ordinance.
Rather than having them start going through the process of getting their exceptions revoked, he said, the amendment was brought forward sooner.
Jacob Simpson, the City Council liaison for the University of Iowa Student Government, said he was concerned that the alcohol panel had not vetted the amendment.
“This ordinance would take establishments whose primary goal isn’t selling alcohol,” he said. “It would allow those establishments to not have as much of a penalty. And we’re obviously concerned about students using alcohol on campus. The more alcohol you consume, the less likely you are to succeed at the university.”
Councilor Susan Mims supported the amendment.
“I think that the inequity for the businesses depending on when their second failure was within a five-year period … That, first of all, spoke to … needing to make a change,” she said. “And this is normally happening to venues that are not … the problem.”
Councilor Pauline Taylor echoed her belief. She said she would “rather see under-21s at these establishments” instead of the bars, which she considers to be the real problem.
Councilor Kingsley Botchway voiced concerns about the greater implications of the message such a policy might send.
“There is a difference between big bars and community young people gathering establishments — but if you’re breaking the law, there’s a consequence, especially when it comes to selling alcohol to minors,” he said.
Councilor Terry Dickens noted the UI’s recent fall to No. 6 on the Princeton Review’s list of top party schools in the nation. This fall in the rankings was, he said, largely thanks to the alcohol panel.
“Let’s just hope it keeps dropping,” he said.