DOWNERS GROVE LIQUOR COMMISSION VILLAGE HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 801 BURLINGTON AVENUE. March 15, 2001

Transcription

1 I. CALL TO ORDER DOWNERS GROVE LIQUOR COMMISSION VILLAGE HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 801 BURLINGTON AVENUE March 15, 2001 Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF: Ms. Gerloff, Mr. Keenley, Mr. Mochel, Chairman Brown Mr. Julian Village Attorney Daniel Blondin, Assistant Village Attorney, Enza Petrarca, Liaison to the Liquor Commission Carol Conforti, Secretary Karen Mudra OTHERS: Alex Gatziolis, Irene Bahr, Willis and Shirley Johnson, Mayor Krajewski, Court Reporter III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MS. GERLOFF MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 1, 2001 LIQUOR COMMISSION MEETING AS PRESENTED. MR. KEENLEY SECONDED. VOTE: Aye: Ms. Gerloff, Mr. Keenley, Mr. Mochel, Chairman Brown Nay: Abstain: None None MOTION CARRIED: 4:0:0 IV. DISCIPLINARY HEARING Chairman Brown made the following statement: "Section 3-40 of the Downers Grove Municipal Code provides that the Local Liquor Commissioner may fine, revoke or suspend any license issued if the Commissioner determines that the

2 Liquor Commission Minutes 2 March 15, 2001 licensee has violated any of the provisions of this chapter or any State law pertaining to the sale of alcohol. Both under the Section cited above, and under Chapter 235, Section 5/7-5, Illinois Compiled Statutes, the Local Liquor Commissioner is required to hold a public hearing after notice to the licensee, in which the licensee is afforded an opportunity to appear and defend. Pursuant to Section 3-5 of the Downers Grove Municipal Code, this hearing is being conducted by the Local Liquor Commission at the request of the Local Liquor Commissioner." "The Commissioner has the power to temporarily suspend a license without a hearing if there is reason to believe that continued operation of the licensed business would immediately threaten the welfare of this community. Such was not done in this case. It is in order that the licensee be represented by counsel, although he need not be for the purposes of this hearing." Chairman Brown asked Attorney Petrarca if there was a stipulation in this case. Ms. Petrarca said that there is a stipulation regarding the evidence, not the violation. Chairman Brown continued: "The order of this hearing will be substantially as follows: A. Prosecution will present its case with the right of the licensee to cross-examine. B. Licensee may present any defense or mitigating evidence with right of prosecution to crossexamine. C. Summary of case by prosecution and defense." "The prosecution should establish that timely notice of this hearing has been provided to the licensee." "Witnesses shall be sworn." "Strict rules of evidence will need not be adhered to although the Commission expects to exercise control over the hearing to ensure that irrelevant or repetitive testimony does not unduly prolong the hearing." "A court reporter is present and will take the proceedings verbatim. A secretary is also present for the purpose of summarizing the proceedings." "The Commission will submit the findings and recommendations to the Local Liquor Commissioner respecting the existence and nature of any violation and the appropriate penalty, if any." "Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Commission, the Commissioner will render a

3 Liquor Commission Minutes 3 March 15, 2001 decision and the licensee will be notified in writing." Riprocks, Inc. d/b/a Riprocks, 3131 Finley Road Chairman Brown asked the witnesses in this case to come forward and be sworn in. Mr. Alex Gatziolis, Liquor Manager of Riprocks, was sworn in by the Court Reporter. Ms. Petrarca read the following signed Stipulation of Facts into evidence: The parties to this hearing before the Liquor Commission of the Village of Downers Grove by and through their attorneys, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Riprocks, Inc. (formerly known as Oliver's) d/b/a Riprocks, 3131 Finley Road, Downers Grove, Illinois, is the holder of a Class D-1 Liquor License # , issued by the Village of Downers Grove. That said Licensee has held a liquor license for this location from the Village of Downers Grove since August 5, Notice of this hearing was served upon the Licensee by certified mail to its registered agent and by personal delivery to the manager of the licensed premises. 3. That on or about June 28, 2000, Licensee received a letter from Village Attorney, Daniel Blondin, dated June 28, 2000, and addressed to the Liquor Manager, Alex Gatziolis. Said letter is attached to this stipulation as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference. 4. The minutes of the liquor commission meeting from February 3, 2000, wherein the nature of the business was discussed is attached to this stipulation as Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein by reference. 5. That the licensee has promoted its premises through various advertisements since it opened. Such advertisements are attached to this stipulation as Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein by reference. 6. That on or about December 8, 2000, the Mayor & Liquor Commissioner, Brian Krajewski, received a letter from Licensee, dated December 8, 2000, and signed by the Liquor Manager, Alex Gatziolis. Said letter is attached to this stipulation as Exhibit 5 and incorporated herein by reference. 7. That on February 14, 2001, Licensee maintained a website for its establishment. Printouts from a portion of Licensee s website are attached to this stipulation as Group Exhibit 6 and incorporated herein by reference.

4 Liquor Commission Minutes 4 March 15, That on or about March 14, 2001, Licensee updated its website. Print-outs of the current website are attached to this stipulation as Group Exhibit 7 and incorporated herein by reference. 9. Licensee has voluntarily agreed to update its website to delete any reference to the word nightclub. 10. Licensee has also voluntarily agreed to amend its logo and any advertisements to delete any reference to the word nightclub. 11. That the allegation that the licensee violated Section (a)(3) of the Downers Grove Municipal Code is hereby dismissed, follow-up investigation having revealed that no violation existed. Attorney Petrarca asked that the signed Stipulation of Facts be admitted as Village Exhibit #1. Chairman Brown accepted the signed Stipulation of Facts as Village Exhibit #1. Ms. Petrarca asked Mr. Gatziolis to explain his role and position at Riprocks. Mr. Gatziolis said he is the Liquor Manager and General Manager for the establishment. He said he works 6 days a week, approximately 70 hours a week. Ms. Petrarca asked Mr. Gatziolis if he oversees the entire operation including the advertising and the website. Mr. Gatziolis said that he and the owners have input in those areas. She asked if any one person is assigned to updating the website. Mr. Gatziolis said a former manager designed the website. Ms. Petrarca asked Mr. Gatziolis if he served in the same capacity when the establishment was Oliver s or if his role changed when the establishment was remodeled and renamed Riprocks. Mr. Gatziolis said his role remained the same. Ms. Petrarca asked Mr. Gatziolis if the nightclub and sports grille are run as two separate establishments. Mr. Gatziolis replied no. He said the same staff and manager operate the entire establishment. Ms. Petrarca asked if there were separate receipts and accounting for each section of the establishment. Mr. Gatziolis replied no. Ms. Petrarca asked Mr. Gatziolis if he knew the approximate ratio of revenue received from the each of the two portions of the establishment. Mr. Gatziolis explained that the nightclub is open four nights a week and the sports grille is open seven days a week. He said the revenue split is probably 50/50. Ms. Petrarca referred to pages 9 and 10 of Exhibit #6, dated February 14, 2000, which were taken from Riprocks website before it was updated. She said the web page refers to a specific time period on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 7:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. and she asked Mr. Gatziolis to explain the drink specials in that ad. Mr. Gatziolis said the ad was for drink specials that are offered on Tuesdays and Thursdays. He explained that these specials are offered for the entire day from the time Riprocks opens at 11:00 a.m. until 1:00 a.m. Ms. Petrarca asked why the ad mentions the specific time-frame of

5 Liquor Commission Minutes 5 March 15, :00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. Mr. Gatziolis said those are the hours that the nightclub portion of the establishment is open on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Ms. Petrarca asked if the drink specials were also available in the sports grille on those days. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Ms. Petrarca asked if food service is available at all times in both the nightclub and the sports grille. Mr. Gatziolis said food service is available until a half hour before closing. Ms. Petrarca referred to pages 16 and 18 (Exhibit #7) taken from the updated website. She said those pages are an excerpt from the dance club portion of the website concerning a Friday night food special in the Grille. Ms. Petrarca asked if the food specials are available in the dance club as well as in the Grille. Mr. Gatziolis said the pages to which Ms. Petrarca referred were for the nightclub portion of the establishment and the purpose of the ad was to convey that the Grille is open late night for sandwiches, etc. He said they wanted customers to know that they serve food late night. Ms. Petrarca asked if the late night food is available in the dance club as well as in the sports grille. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Ms. Petrarca noted that Riprocks appears to use two different logos: Riprocks and Riprocks Nightclub and Sports Grille. She asked Mr. Gatziolis how they came to use two logos. Mr. Gatziolis said the original logo was Riprocks. However, he said that when they first opened Riprocks some people were confused as to what type of establishment it was so they changed the logo to Riprocks Nightclub and Sports Grille to clarify the type of establishment and what they have to offer. Ms. Petrarca noted that they use both logos and asked if they have separate uses for each logo. Mr. Gatziolis said he thought all new materials use the Riprocks Nightclub and Sports Grille logo. Ms. Petrarca asked when the logo was changed. Mr. Gatziolis said he thought they changed the logo a couple of months after they opened. Ms. Petrarca asked if there is any reason that Riprocks is represented as two separate areas. Mr. Gatziolis replied no. Ms. Petrarca referred to Exhibit #2, a letter dated June 28, 2000 from Village Attorney Daniel Blondin addressed to Mr. Alex Gatziolis. She asked Mr. Gatziolis if he recalled receiving the letter. Mr. Gatziolis said he remembered the letter. Ms. Petrarca asked if he understood the purpose of the letter. Mr. Gatziolis said he understood the letter to state that they should not be advertising just the nightclub. After receiving the letter, Mr. Gatziolis said he reviewed all of their advertising up until that point and he said he honestly thought they were not in violation of the Ordinance. He said they were running newspaper ads and sending out mailings advertising the restaurant. He said he felt they were spending more money advertising the restaurant than the nightclub. Mr. Gatziolis said he did not know he had to respond to the letter. He said he thought the letter was a reminder to advertise both portions of Riprocks equally and he felt they were doing that. Ms. Petrarca said the second paragraph of the June 28 th letter states that the Liquor Commission did not and could not approve operation of one portion of the premise as a lounge that could be marketed and advertised separate and distinct from the restaurant itself. She asked if that statement did not

6 Liquor Commission Minutes 6 March 15, 2001 indicate to Mr. Gatziolis that they were licensed as a restaurant and should not be advertising as a nightclub. Mr. Gatziolis said he used the word nightclub during his application hearing before the Liquor Commission after the establishment was remodeled. He said he never thought use of the word nightclub was a problem. Ms. Petrarca asked if Mr. Gatziolis was involved in the establishment when it was known as Oliver s. Mr. Gatziolis said he was part owner of Oliver s, however he only worked there during the last five years. Ms. Petrarca asked if he was at Oliver s when they had similar problems with advertising for portions of that establishment known as Oliver s and Louie Linguini s. Ms. Petrarca showed Mr. Gatziolis Village s Exhibit #8, a letter of agreement from Ms. Irene Bahr, concerning Oliver s, which resulted from that situation. Ms. Petrarca said that in the second paragraph of the letter, the author agrees to delete any future references to Oliver s as a nightclub, bar or dance club. She asked Mr. Gatziolis if he was aware of this letter of agreement. Mr. Gatziolis said that he was not. Ms. Petrarca asked if there is any reason that this restriction against Oliver s should not apply to Riprocks as well. Mr. Gatziolis replied no. Ms. Petrarca asked if Mr. Gatziolis is aware that the liquor license for Riprocks is a Class D-1 restaurant license. He said he understood. She asked if he felt that Riprocks, as it is currently being operated, can comply with the requirement that the primary business of an establishment with a Class D-1 license is to be a restaurant. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Ms. Petrarca having no further questions, moved to admit Village s Exhibits #1 through #8. Ms. Bahr, attorney for Riprocks, had no objection. Village Attorney Blondin asked if Mr. Gatziolis ever contacted the Village asking for further clarification of his letter dated June 28, Mr. Gatziolis replied no. Mr. Blondin asked if Mr. Gatziolis felt he understood the contents of the letter and did not need to ask for clarification. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Mr. Blondin said it is his understanding that the restaurant portion of Riprocks is open at times when the nightclub portion is not. However, the nightclub portion of the establishment is never open at times when the restaurant portion is not. Mr. Gatziolis agreed. Mr. Blondin asked how the current ownership of Riprocks is held. Mr. Gatziolis said his brothers John Gatziolis and Tom Gatziolis own Riprocks. Mr. Blondin asked if they were shareholders in the corporation that owned Oliver s at the time the letter of agreement to which Ms. Petrarca referred was issued. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Ms. Irene Bahr, attorney for Riprocks, referred Exhibit #8, the 1993 letter of agreement with Oliver s. She noted that it states that promotions for certain rooms are prohibited. Mr. Gatziolis agreed. She pointed out that there was a discussion in 1993 concerning use of the term nightclub. However, in

7 Liquor Commission Minutes 7 March 15, 2001 February 2000 when Mr. Gatziolis appeared before the Liquor Commission to apply for a liquor license for the newly remodeled Riprocks, Ms. Bahr noted that he referred to a portion of the business as a nightclub. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Thus, Ms. Bahr said the Village was aware that Mr. Gatziolis was referring to a portion of Riprocks as a nightclub. Ms. Bahr pointed out that Mr. Gatziolis was not the liquor manager at Oliver s in 1993 and although there was common ownership, Mr. Alex Gatziolis was not aware of the 1993 letter of agreement. Ms. Bahr referred to Village Exhibit #5, a letter from Mr. Gatziolis to the Village displaying the Riprocks logo containing the word nightclub. She asked if the Village responded to that letter. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. She asked if there was anything in Village s response objecting to the word nightclub at that time. Ms. Bahr asked if Mr. Gatziolis had a follow-up conversation to the letter. Mr. Gatziolis said he spoke with Ms. Conforti and she did not mention the use of the word nightclub on the letterhead. Ms. Bahr asked Mr. Gatziolis if Riprocks was referred to as a restaurant/nightclub during the liquor license application hearing in February Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. She asked if the word nightclub was used in their advertising from that point forward. He replied yes. Ms. Bahr referred to Village Exhibit #2, the letter from Mr. Blondin, dated June 28, 2000, concerning advertising the lounge and restaurant separately on the Riprocks' website. She asked if Mr. Gatziolis had two different websites, one advertising the lounge and one advertising the restaurant. He replied no. Ms. Bahr stated that Riprocks has one website advertising the different aspects of their facility. Ms. Bahr referred to Village Exhibit #6, an excerpt from the Riprocks' website on February 14, 2001, which uses the term nightclub. She asked Mr. Gatziolis if that page is the first page on the website. He replied no. He explained it is just a portion of the website. Ms. Bahr said the home page, or first page of the website, currently says Riprocks and that was the same home page that was in use on February 14, 2001 when Village Exhibit #6 was taken from the website. Mr. Gatziolis said the other pages on the website show different food and drink specials and the areas, dates and times that the specials are available. Ms. Bahr asked if by viewing the entire website, Mr. Gatziolis felt an individual would get a full view of what the entire establishment offers. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Ms. Bahr asked Mr. Gatziolis if, when he received Mr. Blondin s letter of June 28, 2000 advising that his liquor license prohibits advertising the lounge and the restaurant portions of his facility as separate establishments, he believed that was what the website was doing. He replied no. He said he felt the website advertisement was showing different aspects of the business. Mr. Gatziolis said anyone visiting the website would have to begin at the home page and then click into the different areas that the establishment offers. Ms. Bahr asked Mr. Gatziolis if that was true when he received Mr. Blondin s letter in June. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Ms. Bahr asked if the Village was objecting to Riprocks motif or décor or if it is just the advertising. Ms. Petrarca replied that the objection is to the advertising. Ms. Bahr asked if Mr. Gatziolis felt his

8 Liquor Commission Minutes 8 March 15, 2001 advertising was consistent with the presentation he made to the Liquor Commission when he applied for his license in February Mr. Gatziolis said he thought they were advertising as a restaurant and that they were in compliance. He added that many advertising campaigns advertised only the restaurant. Ms. Bahr asked if his advertising focused anything that had not been disclosed to the Liquor Commission during the application hearing. She asked if they always use Riprocks, the name that appears on their liquor license, on their advertising. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Ms. Bahr asked Mr. Gatziolis if he now wishes he had contacted the Village when he received Mr. Blondin s letter in June. He replied yes. Ms. Bahr asked Mr. Gatziolis if food service is available throughout the establishment at all times, until one half hour before closing. He replied yes. Ms. Bahr asked Mr. Gatziolis the hours that the different portions of his establishment are open. He said the dance club is open on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from 8:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.; and on Saturdays from 9:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. Ms. Bahr referred to page 1 of Exhibit #6 and pointed out a box on the lower portion of the page labeled nightclub. She explained that by clicking on that box, more information about the nightclub would be displayed; however, the information on page 1 itself referred to activities and specials in the Sports Grille. Mr. Gatziolis agreed. Ms. Bahr clarified that when a page displayed a box labeled Sports Grille, the page itself displayed specials and activities offered in the nightclub. Ms. Bahr said that Mr. Gatziolis has agreed to eliminate the word nightclub from the website and other advertising. Ms. Bahr said that it has already been removed from the website; however, it has not been removed from their stationery letterhead. Mr. Gatziolis explained that they have a large stock of letterhead and postcards with the nightclub logo. He said he thought the flyers and postcards would last about six months; however, the letterhead would probably last longer. Ms. Bahr asked for a timetable to remove all reference to the word nightclub from print advertising. Mr. Gatziolis said it would take about six months to use up the supply of in-house flyers. He added that reference to the nightclub could be removed immediately from media print advertising. Mr. Gatziolis asked the Commission to allow him a time-frame in which he could use the stationery supplies on hand with the nightclub logo. Ms. Bahr asked Mr. Gatziolis if he has ordered any stationery with the nightclub logo since he received this citation from the Village. He replied no. She asked him if he has canceled any orders that were placed before the citation was received. He replied yes. Chairman Brown asked to see a sample of the in-house flyers to which Mr. Gatziolis referred. Ms. Bahr said Village Exhibit #4, page 6 shows a copy of a postcard with the nightclub logo of which Mr. Gatziolis has a large supply on hand. Ms. Gerloff said she has several concerns. She referred to the minutes of the February 3, 2000 Liquor Commission Meeting concerning Riprocks liquor license application hearing. On page 4 of the minutes

9 Liquor Commission Minutes 9 March 15, 2001 it stated that Mr. Julian reminded Mr. Gatziolis that food service is to be the major business of the establishment. It also stated that Mr. Gatziolis said they are a responsible establishment and have remodeled their restaurant in an attempt to bolster food sales and to attract more customers to the restaurant. In response to Mr. Sullivan s question concerning the use of the term sports bar, sports grille, the minutes stated that Mr. Gatziolis said they refer to their restaurant as a sports grille rather than a sports bar and they are serious about their food sales. Ms. Gerloff said she feels during the application hearing the Commission pointed out that their focus was on food sales. Ms. Gerloff said when she read the letter Mr. Gatziolis received from Mr. Blondin in June 2000, she thought it clearly stated that Mr. Gatziolis was not to advertise two separate facilities; his license was for a restaurant and he should not be advertising as a nightclub. Ms. Gerloff expressed concern that Mr. Gatziolis did not respond to Mr. Blondin s letter. She said she feels it was a pretty serious letter to receive from a Liquor Commission as it pertains to Mr. Gatziolis s livelihood and she feels he should have responded to the letter. Ms. Gerloff said she visited Riprocks website in February 2001 and felt that they were obviously advertising happy hours at that time. Ms. Gerloff noted that by clicking on various sections of the website, drink specials were displayed for the Sports Grille and for the nightclub. Ms. Gerloff noted that Mr. Gatziolis said they were removing the word nightclub ; however, when she revisited Riprocks website this morning, March 15, 2001, it still offered the option to visit the Sports Grille or the nightclub. She said the only change she noticed on the web page was that instead of advertising Ladies Night 7:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., it advertised drink specials that were available all day. She noted the Thursday Ladies Night has now been changed to Drink Specials for Everyone from 7:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. Ms. Gerloff said the term nightclub is still being used and it is presented in a separate section of the website. Ms. Gerloff said there is also a section for the Sports Grille listing drink specials from 11:00 a.m. until closing instead of from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. She said it appears that they have changed the website so there are no longer certain hours for happy hours. Mr. Blondin asked the Commission to stop this line of questioning because it was going beyond the record that was presented by the prosecutor. Mr. Blondin advised the Commission that they could not look at anything beyond the record that was presented by the prosecutor. He said that the Commission could not go out independently and pull up information. He explained that the Commission is to make a judgment on the case based on the evidence that is presented at this hearing. Mr. Blondin said the Commissioners may question Mr. Gatziolis regarding the evidence that has been presented. However, he asked the Commission to disregard Ms. Gerloff s questions and comments when determining either guilt or penalty in this case. Ms. Gerloff apologized. She noted that Mr. Gatziolis agreed to remove the word nightclub from the logo. She asked when it was removed. Mr. Gatziolis said the word nightclub was removed from the website. Ms. Petrarca confirmed that Village Exhibit #7, which was taken from Riprocks updated website on March 14, 2001, shows that the word nightclub has been changed to dance club. Ms. Gerloff said when she checked the website this morning (March 15, 2001) the hours for the drink

10 Liquor Commission Minutes 10 March 15, 2001 specials had been changed; however, it still said nightclub. Chairman Brown asked if the advertised drink specials are offered throughout the entire establishment. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Mr. Gatziolis said the previous advertisement for Ladies Night specials from 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. was displayed on the nightclub portion of the website and those hours reflected the hours that the nightclub or dance club was open. Mr. Keenley asked if Mr. Gatziolis keeps one set of books for the nightclub and the Grille. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Mr. Keenley noted Mr. Gatziolis said that the ratio of food and alcohol sales is about 50/50. Mr. Keenley asked what the total weekly food sales are. Mr. Gatziolis declined to answer. Mr. Keenley asked the number of customers they have on a typical Friday or Saturday. Mr. Gatziolis replied that they have roughly seven to eight hundred customers on those evenings. Mr. Keenley asked if food is served in the nightclub area. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. He said the same menu is available in the nightclub and Sports Grille. Mr. Keenley asked if there are full size tables in the nightclub area. Mr. Gatziolis said the tables are full-size 48-inch tables. He added that there are some tall seating tables available in the nightclub, as well as the full-size tables with low, comfortable seating for groups of from 2 to 16 people. Mr. Keenley asked Mr. Gatziolis how large of a supply of letterhead stationery he had on-hand. Mr. Gatziolis said his supply will probably last a couple of years because they do not write many letters. He added that they have about a six-month supply of smaller, post card flyers. Mr. Keenley asked the cost of the post cards. Mr. Gatziolis said approximately $3, Mr. Keenley asked if Riprocks conducted any audience- participation contests, games or prizes during the week. Mr. Gatziolis replied no. Mr. Keenley asked to see a copy of the current menu. Mr. Gatziolis had only an older version of the menu, which he gave to Mr. Keenley. However, he said it is substantially the same as the current menu. Mr. Keenley asked if it is similar to the menu Mr. Gatziolis presented during the license application hearing in February Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Chairman Brown asked if the menu is available throughout the establishment. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Mr. Keenley asked if the nightclub is open on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. Mr. Keenley asked if the remodeling has had a positive effect on business at Riprocks. Mr. Gatziolis replied yes. He said the televisions in the establishment and the lighter menu have attracted a larger number of business people for lunch than their previous heavier more expensive Italian menu. Mr. Mochel asked if Mr. Gatziolis owns any part of Riprocks. Mr. Gatziolis replied no. Mr. Mochel referred to the February 3, 2000 Liquor Commission minutes, which are part of the stipulation. He said

11 Liquor Commission Minutes 11 March 15, 2001 that on Page 2, Paragraph 2 of the minutes Mr. Gatziolis was identified as Liquor Manager and part owner of Riprocks. Mr. Gatziolis explained that he was part owner in Oliver s and at the time of the hearing they were in the process of changing over from Oliver s to Riprocks. Mr. Mochel asked how long Mr. Gatziolis has been involved in Oliver s or Riprocks at the 3131 Finley Road location. Mr. Gatziolis said almost 17 years, either on-site as liquor manager or a partial owner. Mr. Mochel said he found it extremely hard to comprehend that Mr. Gatziolis has never calculated the ratio of revenue from food versus alcohol sales. Mr. Gatziolis said it has never been an issue. Mr. Mochel said other less experienced restaurant owners have been able to provide those percentages by the week. Mr. Mochel asked why Mr. Gatziolis refers to the establishment as a nightclub and dance club, rather than as a restaurant. He pointed out that Mr. Gatziolis said they are a restaurant, not a nightclub and yet when he changed his logo and advertising the word restaurant did not appear. Mr. Mochel asked why. Mr. Gatziolis said Sports Grille is used and that indicates a restaurant. Mr. Mochel said he feels Sports Grille was a change from sports bar. Mr. Gatziolis disagreed and said that was not his interpretation. Mr. Mochel asked why the establishment is advertised as a dance club and sports grille, why not just market it as a sports grille. Mr. Gatziolis said they were advertising the different aspects offered at the facility, food and dancing. Mr. Gatziolis said they have always offered dancing at Oliver s and at Riprocks. Mr. Mochel said he was surprised that it did not occur to Mr. Gatziolis to reply to Mr. Blondin s letter of June 28, 2000 especially because the letter indicated that the Village felt he was doing something wrong. Mr. Mochel said thought that such a letter would have prompted Mr. Gatziolis to contact the Village for further clarification. However, he did not do so. Mr. Gatziolis said that after reading the letter, he felt he was in compliance. Mr. Mochel said he understood that Mr. Gatziolis thought he was in compliance; however, he did not understand why Mr. Gatziolis did not contact the Village to clarify the situation with Mr. Blondin. Mr. Gatziolis said that in hind-sight he wishes that he had responded to the letter. Mr. Mochel said that during the application hearing in February 2000, Mr. Gatziolis indicated that they were trying to increase food sales and tonight Mr. Gatziolis indicated that the liquor versus food sales ratio was about 50/50. Mr. Gatziolis agreed, although he said he has not actually calculated the ratio. Mr. Mochel noted that during the application hearing in February 2000, Mr. Gatziolis said that food and alcohol sales were about 50/50. Thus, Mr. Mochel said it does not appear that remodeling the establishment has bolstered the food sales. Mr. Gatziolis said the alcohol versus food sales ratio may have been 60/40 prior to remodeling, as the figures are estimated. Mr. Mochel asked if the estimate of 50/50 is accurate or if perhaps the alcohol versus food sales are really 60/40. Mr. Gatziolis said he could not say for sure because the figures are approximate as he has not actually calculated the ratio. Chairman Brown said he felt it probably would have been a good idea for Mr. Gatziolis to respond to

12 Liquor Commission Minutes 12 March 15, 2001 Mr. Blondin s June 28 th letter. He added that he is concerned that individuals viewing just a portion of the website could find it confusing. He said he feels the website gives the wrong message. When viewing certain isolated portions of the site Chairman Brown said he could not even tell that food was served at the establishment. He said he feels portions of the website are traps and that it is Mr. Gatziolis s responsibility to ensure that the website presents an accurate description of the establishment. Chairman Brown cited several pages in Exhibit #6 that display drink specials with little or no mention of food. He wondered why Mr. Gatziolis chose to emphasis alcohol specials rather than food in his advertising when it appears to violate of the spirit the Ordinance, if not the actual Ordinance. Chairman Brown said he is concerned that Mr. Gatziolis does not emphasis their menu of food items more in their advertising. Chairman Brown added that the availability of food could be included on each portion of the website. Village Attorney Blondin asked Mr. Gatziolis if his current liquor license or application made any reference to nightclubs. Mr. Gatziolis replied no. Mr. Keenley asked what type of establishment Oliver s was when it first opened. Mr. Gatziolis said it similar to what they have now. Ms. Bahr clarified that the seating in the establishment is the same as the seating shown on the floor plan submitted with the application in February Mr. Gatziolis concurred. Mr. Mochel asked to see a copy of Riprocks' liquor liability policy on file with the Village. Mr. Blondin asked if Ms. Bahr or Mr. Gatziolis had any objection. They replied no. Ms. Petrarca provided a copy of the certificate for Mr. Mochel s review. She also gave a copy to Ms. Bahr and Mr. Gatziolis for their review. Mr. Mochel and Ms. Bahr reviewed the certificate. Ms. Petrarca summarized by stating that the licensee has been charged with violating Section (a)(2) of the Downers Grove Municipal Code by changing its advertising for the establishment in a manner that promotes the sale of alcohol and the entertainment available on the premises as opposed to the availability of food service without notifying the Commission as required by Ordinance. As shown in the minutes from February 3, 2000, at that time licensee represented to the Commission that the purpose of the remodeling was an attempt to bolster the sale of food and to attract more customers to the restaurant. Certainly the subsequent act of advertising as a nightclub misrepresents that stated intention of bolstering the food sales. Licensee is also being charged with violating Section of the Downers Grove Municipal Code by advertising as a nightclub which is inconsistent with its current Class D-1 license, which only authorizes the operation of a restaurant, not a nightclub. Ms. Petrarca said she feels the evidence presented clearly shows that the licensee advertised as a nightclub. She stated that Riprocks website, newspaper ads, and letterhead all include the word nightclub. The licensee holds a Class D-1 restaurant license, which only authorizes the sale of alcohol where the major or primary business is that of a restaurant. Ms. Petrarca said that by presenting the establishment as a nightclub, the licensee is clearly violating Village Ordinance. Ms. Petrarca said

13 Liquor Commission Minutes 13 March 15, 2001 the fact that the licensee continued to advertise as a nightclub after he received Mr. Blondin s letter of June 28, 2000, advising him that any future advertising was to be consistent with his Class D-1 license, which was that of a restaurant, constitutes an aggravating circumstance in this case. Ms. Petrarca said that the licensee is also charged with violating Section (d) by advertising drink specials for only specific times on specific days. This is shown on the website pages in Village Exhibit #5 that specifically state that the drink specials are available on Tuesdays and Thursdays in the nightclub from 7:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. Ms. Petrarca said this is a violation of our happy hour ordinance, which requires that drink specials be available and offered throughout the entire establishment and for the entire day. Ms. Petrarca said the website seems to imply that those drink specials were only available for that limited time. Based on this evidence, Ms. Petrarca recommended that the licensee be prohibited from referring to Riprocks as a nightclub and from advertising drinks specials for only certain times and certain days. She also recommended the following penalty: that Riprocks liquor license be suspended for two (2) to four (4) days and that a fine not to exceed $1, be imposed. Ms. Bahr stated that she feels that from Mr. Gatziolis s testimony concerning the exhibits that were presented, he had no intention of hiding anything from the Village in terms of the nature of their operation, how it was conducted or how it was referred to. It was discussed during the application hearing process in February Ms. Bahr said most of Riprocks advertising refers to their food and she does not feel it is fair to say that the website was only advertising certain things. She pointed out that individuals could not access the web page concerning the nightclub without going through Riprocks main home page, unless they have the specific address for that page. She said as individuals click through the various web pages, she feels it presents a picture of everything that goes on at Riprocks. Thus, she said she feels it was fair that her client believed he was representing all aspects of the establishment. Ms. Bahr said Mr. Gatziolis now wishes that he had responded to Mr. Blondin s letter of June 28, She said she feels the letter appeared to be informative and pointed out that it did not request a response. Thus, she did not feel that Mr. Gatziolis s failure to respond to the letter should be considered an aggravating circumstance. She said he reviewed all of his advertising. Ms. Bahr pointed out advertisements that focus on food and family. She added that to be fair, all of the advertising should be taken into consideration. Ms. Bahr stated that the charge that Riprocks actually violated the happy hour was dismissed as was the charge that they actually sold any drink specials during specific days and times. Ms. Bahr said the only allegation that remains is that they advertised a happy hour that they did not have and Ms. Bahr said she does not feel that charge has been proven. Ms. Bahr said when Ms. Petrarca asked Mr. Gatziolis about the web pages advertising drink specials on certain days and at certain times, he testified that the hours referred to were the hours that the room was open and the specials were offered all day throughout the premises. Ms. Bahr said this is permitted by the Ordinance. Ms. Bahr said subsequent investigation showed that Riprocks was not running specials that were only offered at certain times of the day. Ms. Bahr admitted that after reviewing the web pages, they agreed that they could have been

14 Liquor Commission Minutes 14 March 15, 2001 written better and more clearly. However, she said individuals had to click through various pages, including one which gives the hours for that room, before getting to the page displaying the specials. She added that Riprocks did modify the web pages after they reviewed them and realized they could be confusing. Ms. Bahr said in light of the fact that Riprocks did not actually violate the happy hour ordinance and in light of Mr. Gatziolis s testimony concerning the website, there is no evidence of a clear violation of advertising happy hour specials. Ms. Bahr said in terms of Section , which concerns changes in the focus of the establishment. Ms. Bahr said there were no changes from the time of the application hearing in February At that time there was discussion included the minutes that Riprocks would be a restaurant, sports grille and nightclub. Ms. Bahr said Mr. Gatziolis is willing to work with the Village to resolve the concerns. However, Ms. Bahr said she feels it is unfair to say the Mr. Gatziolis was doing anything that he did not disclose at the application hearing or that he blatantly violated the provisions of the Ordinance. Ms. Bahr noted that Mr. Gatziolis has stipulated that he will no longer use the word nightclub in reference to Riprocks and that he has changed his advertising to clarify that drink specials are not offered for certain times and/or certain days. Ms. Bahr said she feels Mr. Gatziolis s advertising should be considered as an entire advertising and promotional package. Thus, Ms. Bahr said she feels a two (2) to four (4) day suspension would be too severe. Chairman Brown asked if the violation of the happy hour has been dismissed. Ms. Petrarca said the charge of violating of the happy hour sale has been dismissed; however, the charge of advertising for happy hour, which is a violation of Section (b), has not been dismissed. Ms. Bahr said that means they were advertising something that they did not do and it is their position that they were not advertising that. She added that when it was pointed out that the ad could be misleading, Riprocks changed the advertising. Chairman Brown clarified that they were not actually offering drink specials at specific times or days. Ms. Bahr replied never. She added that an investigator sent by the Village found that to be the case. Ms. Gerloff said she was concerned that their ads appeared to advertise a happy hour. Chairman Brown called for a motion to determine if a violation of Sections (a)(2) and , (b) actually occurred. MS. GERLOFF MOVED TO FIND RIPROCKS, INC. D/B/A RIPROCKS, 3131 FINLEY ROAD, GUILTY OF VIOLATING SECTIONS (a)(2), AND (d) OF THE ORDINANCE. MR. MOCHEL MOVED TO SECOND. VOTE: Aye: Ms. Gerloff, Mr. Mochel, Mr. Keenley, Chairman Brown

15 Liquor Commission Minutes 15 March 15, 2001 Nay: Abstain: None None MOTION PASSED: 4:0:0 Chairman Brown called for a motion on a penalty for the violation, if deemed appropriate. Mr. Keenley asked Ms. Petrarca to repeat the penalty recommendations. Ms. Petrarca said the recommendation was that the licensee be prohibited from referring to Riprocks as a nightclub and from advertising drink specials for only certain hours of the day, that their liquor license be suspended from two (2) to four (4) days and that a fine be imposed in an amount not to exceed $1, MR. KEENLEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE LICENSE OF RIPROCKS, INC. D/B/A RIPROCKS, 3131 FINLEY ROAD BE SUSPENDED FOR ONE (1) DAY AND THAT RIPROCKS BE REQUIRED TO PAY A FINE OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS $1, CHAIRMAN BROWN SECONDED. Chairman Brown asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mochel said that he finds it extremely difficult to understand how someone with 16 years of experience did not respond in a timely manner, or at all, to some of these items. He said that because these violations involve individuals with considerable restaurant experience, he feels there are probably more aggravating circumstances and he feels that a suspension of more than one (1) day is warranted in this case. Ms. Gerloff agreed. Mr. Keenley explained that he felt the Village should have asked for a response to Mr. Blondin s letter, perhaps within a thirty (30) day period. Ms. Gerloff agreed that requesting a response would have alleviated a lot of problems; however, she pointed out that there is still Riprocks website advertising as a nightclub to consider and she feels that there is evidence of Ordinance violations. Ms. Gerloff said she does not feel that a one (1) day suspension is adequate. MS. GERLOFF MOVED TO AMEND COMMISSIONER KEENLEY S MOTION TO INCREASE THE RECOMMENDED SUSPENSION TO TWO DAYS (2). MR. MOCHEL SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE: Aye: Ms. Gerloff, Mr. Mochel, Mr. Keenley, Chairman Brown Nay: Abstain: None None

16 Liquor Commission Minutes 16 March 15, 2001 MOTION PASSED: 4:0:0 Chairman Brown restated Mr. Keenley s motion as amended recommending that the license of Riprocks, Inc., d/b/a Riprocks, 3131 Finley Road, be suspended for two (2) days and that Riprocks be required to pay a fine of $1, VOTE: Aye: Mr. Keenley, Chairman Brown, Ms. Gerloff, Mr. Mochel Nay: Abstain: None None MOTION PASSED: 4:0:0 Chairman Brown explained that this recommendation will be forwarded to the Liquor Commissioner and he will make a decision. Mr. Gatziolis will be notified of that decision in writing within 30 days. Mr. Blondin said Ms. Bahr would also receive a copy of the Liquor Commissioner s decision. V. OLD BUSINESS None VI. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Brown said the Tivoli, 935 Warren Avenue, has requested creation of a new liquor license classification. Mr. Willis Johnson, President of Tivoli Enterprises introduced himself and his wife Shirley Johnson, Secretary of Tivoli Enterprises. Mr. Johnson said the Tivoli Theater has been in business in Downers Grove since 1928 and they have operated it since 1978 as a bargain theater. However, Mr. Johnson said the bargain theater business has continued to decline over the years and they have been renting out the theater more frequently for live performances. As part of an on-going effort to increase this aspect of their business, Mr. Johnson said they are requesting that a liquor license be created that would enable them to offer liquor service at the theater, primarily during intermissions, for appropriate non-scheduled movie events. Mr. Johnson explained that if the Village allows them to sell alcohol, they plan to use a portable bar that can be removed when not in use. Mr. Johnson distributed a packet detailing the remodeling they have done to accommodate live performances and a list of non-scheduled movie events that were held in 1999 and 2000 and those booked for 2000 and He said they have remodeled the stage and upgraded the lighting and sound in the theater. Currently they are reconstructing and enlarging the bathrooms, bringing them both

17 Liquor Commission Minutes 17 March 15, 2001 to lobby level. They are also adding a coatroom. In the future he said they plan to reseat the theater to provide reserve seating and they plan to install new carpeting. Mr. Johnson added that there was a proposal to build additional theaters around the original theater and if that is done, the original theater could be kept separate for purposes of alcohol service. Chairman Brown noted that the schedule of non-scheduled movie events does not list the hours that those events take place. Mr. Johnson said some are afternoon events and some are evening events. He clarified that not all the events on the schedule would have liquor service. He said they would like to serve liquor at the After Hours Film Society events which are scheduled in the evening, but not at the Our Town Production events which are scheduled in the afternoon. Mr. Keenley asked about the attendance at the After Hours Film Society. Mr. Johnson said the attendance is usually between 250 and 450 people. Ms. Gerloff asked if Mr. Johnson wanted to serve alcohol only during intermission and if patrons would be permitted to take alcohol into the theater. Mr. Johnson said the primary time for liquor service would be intermission and alcohol would be permitted in the theater, unless the group renting the theater objected. Ms. Gerloff asked if the liquor service would be under Mr. Johnson s control, rather than that of the group renting the theater. Mr. Johnson said alcohol service would be under his control; however, he would take the wishes of the group renting the theater into consideration. Mr. Blondin asked Mr. Johnson exactly what type of license he wanted the Village to create. Mr. Johnson said he is requesting a full alcohol license for on premises consumption. Mr. Johnson said alcohol service would be restricted to non-scheduled movie events, other than regularly scheduled movies. Mr. Blondin said when creating the license classification, he would need a more specific way to identify the times when alcohol would be permitted. Mr. Johnson said that every week a schedule of movies to be shown is published in the newspaper. He said he would like to have alcohol service only in conjunction with non-scheduled movie events. Mr. Blondin noted that the movie schedule changes each week and if Mr. Johnson had all non-scheduled movie events one week, he could conceivably sell alcohol during that entire time. Mr. Johnson clarified that he plans to sell alcohol during non-scheduled movie events; however, he does not plan to book these events specifically so that he can sell alcohol. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the After Hours Film Society movie would be the only movie at which alcohol would be sold. Mr. Mochel asked if the After Hours Film Society rents the theater for their meetings. Mr. Johnson replied yes. Mr. Mochel said if alcohol service is only planned for times when the theater was being rented out, perhaps tying liquor sales to those circumstances would help clarify the ordinance. Chairman Brown said it would appear that Mr. Johnson is acting as a caterer to individuals who are renting the theater for a function. He asked if the theater rentals are booked in advance. Mr. Johnson replied yes. Chairman Brown said that perhaps Mr. Johnson could record the theater bookings in the same way that caterers currently record their jobs with the Village. In that way the Village would know

18 Liquor Commission Minutes 18 March 15, 2001 the dates and times of events when alcohol may be sold. Chairman Brown added that during those times Mr. Johnson, as a caterer, would be responsible for dispensing and controlling the sale of the alcohol. Ms. Gerloff said she thought the license should specify alcohol service at special events, to differentiate from regularly scheduled movies. Mr. Blondin noted that some of the special events are movies, i.e. After Hours Film Society gatherings. Chairman Brown said he feels it would be simpler to treat this as a catering situation. Mr. Blondin asked if the special events are closed or open to the general public. Mr. Johnson said some events are closed; however, the majority are open to the public. Mr. Blondin asked if all the events are either movies or live performance events or is the theater rented out for a group gatherings. Mr. Johnson said they are all movies or live performances. However, Mr. Mochel noted that the Chamber of Commerce After Hours could be considered a group gathering. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Keenley asked how Mr. Johnson refers to the regular movies that the theater shows each week. Mr. Johnson said that is what he defines as regularly scheduled movies. Mr. Johnson said his wife puts a movie schedule together on Mondays for those films to be shown beginning on Friday. Chairman Brown asked if the theater could be rented out for the regularly scheduled movies. Mr. Johnson replied no. He explained that once the movie schedule has been published, they cannot rent out the facility during those times. Mr. Johnson added that there is always at least a five-day lead-time for theater rentals and most events are booked months in advance. Chairman Brown said if Mr. Johnson acted as a caterer for the groups renting the theater, an agreement would be made governing each group and each event. Chairman Brown wondered if a catering license could be issued. Village Attorney Blondin said he would like to consider the ramifications of using a catering license in this situation before making a decision. Ms. Conforti added that the current catering license is for alcohol service in conjunction with food service. Mr. Mochel asked if a new license is created, would it be tailored specifically for the Tivoli Theater or would it also serve other theaters that might locate in Downers Grove. Mr. Blondin said it would probably be specifically for the Tivoli. Ms. Gerloff said she is not against an alcohol license for the Tivoli; however, she would like Mr. Johnson to state that he will remain in control of the alcohol sales and will not turn it over to the individual or group that is renting the theater. Ms. Gerloff also asked how service to minors would be controlled. Mr. Mochel said he is concerned about how drink sharing can be controlled in a darkened theater. Mr. Johnson said it would be his responsibility to ensure that alcohol is not served to, or shared with, minors. He added that he would not give up control of his concessions to any group renting the theater.