City of Blaine, a Municipal Corporation v. Shanice Chante Hines-Hyatt, Relator
Minnesota Court of Appeals
City of Blaine, a Municipal Corporation v. Shanice Chante Hines-Hyatt, Relator
Opinion
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A23-0607
City of Blaine, a Municipal Corporation,
Respondent,
vs.
Shanice Chante Hines-Hyatt,
Relator.
Filed February 5, 2024
Reversed and remanded
Larkin, Judge
City of Blaine
Kevin S. Sandstrom, Eckberg Lammers, P.C., Stillwater, Minnesota (for respondent)
Marshall H. Tanick, Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator)
Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larkin,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
LARKIN, Judge
Relator-restaurant-owner challenges respondent city’s denial of her liquor-license
application. Because the record indicates that the decision to deny relator’s application
was made by the city clerk, and not the city council as required by city ordinance, we
reverse and remand for a decision by the city council.
FACTS
Relator Shanice Chante Hines-Hyatt owns the Irie Vybz Jamaican Restaurant. In
the fall of 2022, relator moved the restaurant from Brooklyn Center to Blaine. After
moving the restaurant, relator applied to respondent City of Blaine for on-sale and Sunday
sale intoxicating liquor licenses.
In February 2023, the city council considered relator’s liquor-license application at
a public hearing. The council unanimously approved relator’s application. One month
later, the city clerk notified relator, by letter dated March 14, 2023, that her application
“[was] being denied.” The letter informed relator that she had “the right to appeal within
20 days . . . by notifying the City Clerk’s Office in writing.”
Relator notified respondent of her desire to appeal, and respondent provided a
hearing before a hearing officer. Relator was self-represented at the hearing; respondent
did not appear. The hearing officer issued a decision as follows: “[T]he conditions for
denial are confirmed, and denial of the Intoxicating Liquor License is hereby upheld.”
Relator brings this certiorari appeal challenging respondent’s denial of her
application for on-sale and Sunday sale liquor licenses.
DECISION
Judicial review of the denial of a liquor license is obtained through certiorari.
Micius v. St. Paul City Council, 524 N.W.2d 521, 523(Minn. App. 1994). “Municipal authorities have broad discretion to determine the manner in which liquor licenses are issued, regulated, and revoked.” Bourbon Bar & Cafe Corp. v. City of St. Paul,466 N.W.2d 438, 440
(Minn. App. 1991). And “a city council is vested with broad
2
discretion in its consideration of a liquor license application.” Country Liquors, Inc. v. City
Council, 264 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Minn. 1978) (quotation omitted).
On certiorari appeal from a quasi-judicial decision not subject to the Minnesota
Administrative Procedure Act, our review includes the regularity of the decision-making
process. Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, 811 N.W.2d 162, 165(Minn. App. 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 17, 2012). Specifically, we review the record to determine if the decision-making body followed the correct procedure. Smith v. Minn. Dep’t of Hum. Servs.,764 N.W.2d 388, 391-92
(Minn. App. 2009).
The Blaine Code of Ordinances sets forth respondent’s liquor-license application
process. “Every application for a license . . . shall be on a form provided by the city” and
the “application form shall be completed to the satisfaction of the city.” Blaine, Minn.,
Code of Ordinances (BCO) ch. 6, § 6-41(a) (Apr. 16, 2009). “If the application form is not
completed to the satisfaction of the city, the form and the application shall be returned by
the city to the applicant.” Id.
“On an initial application for a license, . . . the city shall conduct a preliminary
background and financial investigation of the applicant or it may contract with the
commissioner of public safety for the investigation.” BCO § 6-45(a) (June 16, 2016). “If
in the discretion of the city, the results of a preliminary investigation warrant, a
comprehensive background and financial investigation may occur.” BCO § 6-45(b) (June
16, 2016).
The Blaine Code of Ordinances further provides:
3
The city shall investigate all facts set out in the
application and not investigated in the preliminary or
comprehensive background and financial investigations, if
required. Opportunity shall be given to any person to be heard
for or against the granting of the license. After any required
investigation and hearing, the council shall in its sound
discretion grant or deny the application.
BCO § 6-46 (June 16, 2016) (emphasis added).
Despite the clear mandate requiring the city council to decide whether to grant or
deny a liquor-license application, respondent conceded at oral argument that it used a
process that was not “laid out in the ordinance.” On February 22, 2023, the city council
held a hearing and provided an opportunity for any person to be heard regarding relator’s
application for on-sale and Sunday sale liquor licenses. Minutes from that meeting stated
that “all necessary paperwork and fees have been submitted to the City and staff
recommends approval of the request.” After an opportunity for public comment, of which
there was none, the council voted 5-0 to approve “On-Sale and Sunday Sale Intoxicating
Liquor Licenses” for relator’s restaurant. The meeting minutes in no way indicate that
the city council’s decision was subject to any conditions, investigation, or the submission
of additional application materials.
However, by a letter dated March 14, 2023, the city clerk notified relator that the
Blaine Police Department had completed “the background investigation” and that based
on that investigation, relator’s application was “being denied.” Contrary to the
representation in the minutes from the earlier council meeting, the letter indicated that
relator had not submitted all the necessary application materials. And although the letter
informed relator that “[t]he city council in its sound discretion may either grant or deny
4
the application for any license” and that “[n]o applicant has a right to a license,” the letter
did not indicate that the decision to deny the licenses had been made or approved by the
city council. Indeed, the letter did not expressly or impliedly attribute the decision to the
city council, and the city council was not copied on the letter.
Relator complains that, under the Blaine Code of Ordinances, the city council had
sole authority to grant or deny relator’s application, yet the city clerk denied the
application. Relator notes that the city clerk did not have the authority to deny the
application. Relator also notes that “the only action taken by the council itself, as reflected
in the record, was to approve [r]elator’s liquor license application” and “[t]he record does
not indicate whether the [c]ity council ever revisited the issue.” Thus, relator argues that
“the [c]ity’s decision appears to have been rendered by an improper arbiter.”
Respondent, on the other hand, treats the denial letter from the city clerk as if it were
a decision of the city council. In doing so, respondent urges this court to make
assumptions that are not supported by the record. For example, at oral argument to this
court, respondent argued that the city council’s unanimous vote to approve relator’s
liquor-license application after a public hearing was contingent on completion of a
background investigation. But respondent acknowledges that the minutes of the city
council meeting do not reflect that contingency. Thus, the record does not support
respondent’s argument.
The record also does not support respondent’s argument that the license denial
communicated in the March 2023 letter from the city clerk represents a decision made by
the city council. In fact, at oral argument to this court, respondent acknowledged that the
5
council did not make the decision to deny relator’s application. Instead, the city council
“defer[red]” to staff to make the decision.
It is problematic that the only city council decision of record in this case is the
decision granting relator’s application, yet respondent argues that the application was
properly denied on the merits. It is also problematic that respondent relies on extra record
documents in support of that argument, specifically, police reports obtained after the city
council’s vote to approve relator’s application. Our review is confined “to the record
before the city council at the time it made its decision.” Hard Times Cafe, Inc. v. City of
Minneapolis, 625 N.W.2d 165, 173 (Minn. App. 2001) (quotation omitted). Thus, we do
not consider police reports that were not presented to the city council.
Respondent argues that the decision was “made by [city] staff after reviewing the
background check instead of by the city council, but the reality [is that] action by the city
is still action by the city; the city denied the application [and] it [is] overall a discretionary
action by the city.” That argument conflicts with clear language in the Blaine Code of
Ordinances requiring a decision by the city council itself. Of course, respondent is free to
amend its procedures for granting a liquor license. See Bourbon Bar & Cafe Corp.,
466 N.W.2d at 440 (“Municipal authorities have broad discretion to determine the manner
in which liquor licenses are issued, regulated, and revoked.”). But in the meantime, we
will not overlook respondent’s failure to comply with the clear decision-making mandate
in the Blaine Code of Ordinances: “the council shall in its sound discretion grant or deny
the application.” BCO § 6-46 (emphasis added).
6
Because the city did not comply with the procedure set forth in its ordinance in
denying relator’s application, we reverse and remand for the city council to make a decision
on relator’s liquor-license application, consistent with the relevant sections of the Blaine
Code of Ordinances. See Hamline-Midway Neighborhood Stability Coal. v. City of St.
Paul, 547 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Minn. App. 1996) (reversing city’s issuance of license to sell
firearms because city did not comply with ordinance in issuing license), rev. denied (Minn.
Sept. 20, 1996).
Reversed and remanded.
7
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished
- Syllabus
- Relator-restaurant-owner challenges respondent city's denial of her liquor-license application. Because the record indicates that the decision to deny relator's application was made by the city clerk, and not the city council as required by city ordinance, we reverse and remand for a decision by the city council.