HomeMy WebLinkAbout830999.tiff MOR II
tiquiDa. To Tom Date June 21 , 1983
COLORADO From Lee
Action on Liquor Licenses for Health Code
subject: Violations
QUESTION PRESENTED: May enforcement actions on a liquor license,
such as non-renewal, take place when there have been violations
of food service regulations.
CONCLUSION: Restaurants, as defined at CRS 1973 , §12-47-103 (21) ,
must "be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and in full
compliance with the requirements for restaurants under the
supervision of the state board of health, " in addition to having
a restaurant license in effect. Failing to meet this requirement
would be a violation of the liquor code and would constitute good
cause for action on the liquor license.
DISCUSSION: A review of the relevant law leads to the conclusion
that all restaurants must do more than merely maintain a food
service license to meet liquor code requirements. The liquor
regulation following CRS 1973 , §12-47-119 , Regulation
47-119.1 (d) , states:
"Restaurants must be maintained in a clean
and sanitary condition and in full compliance
with the requirements for restaurants under
the supervision of the state board of health,
and shall maintain such restaurant license
issued by the board of health in full force
and effect and at all times while selling
alcoholic liquor for consumption therein. "
The regulation is authorized under 12-47-105 (2) (a) , which allows
the promulgation of regulations dealing with "health and sanitary
requirements, standards of cleanliness, orderliness, and
decency. " A restaurant is defined under CRS 1973 ,
§12-47-103 (21) , as an establishment, not a hotel, with special
space and equipment to prepare and serve cooked meals. Such a
definition does not define a type of liquor license but rather a
type of facility. The only weakness in this argument is that the
provisions with respect to restaurants could be argued to relate
only to those facilities holding a hotel and restaurant license,
as opposed to a tavern license.
§12-47-106 provides that a renewal may be denied for "good
cause. " Violations of requirements of the liquor code and, by
reference, the food service code, define "good cause" in this
instance. It would appear that "good cause" exists for the
violation of food service codes even though the facility still
• 69 DOD lv
' . � , 830999
roL
I-
Tom David '---,
Page 2
June 21 , 1983
maintains its restaurant license. Regulation 47-119 . 1 (d)
requires that a restaurant be kept in a clean and sanitary
condition, be in full compliance with the requirements of the
State Board of Health and have a valid food service license.
Full compliance with food service regulations does not require
that a food service establishment score the maximum number of
points on each inspection, under Regulation 10-201 , et seq. , but
rather compliance should be judged by Regulation 10-204 ,
correction of violations. The actual raw score is irrelevant to
the liquor license proceedings or, for that matter, for food
service license proceedings unless a score of less than 60 is
determined, in which case, the establishment has only 48 hours in
which to correct all violations. Compliance is judged on how
quickly corrections are made. All violations of a 4- or 5-point
item are to be corrected within ten days following inspection and
all 1- or 2-weighted items are to be corrected as soon as
possible, but in any event, by the time of the next routine
inspection which must be at least every six months. In Weld
County it is normally every three months.
The particulars of the Rafferty' s inspections would indicate that
there have been two recurring serious violations, items 35 and
2failurehetto ne maintained themselves, andusanitary condition d have ed a
or a
lack of full compliance, would have been an issue to be
determined by the Board based upon the expert testimony of the
health inspectors. The issue has become moot because the
inspection the last week of June yielded a raw score of 92 with
no serious violations.
Should the problem arise again, I recommend that the Health
Department be allowed to present evidence at a revocation
hearing. This primary thrust of presentation should be whether
violations, particularly 4 and 5 point violations, have been
properly corrected. In most instances, the possibility of a
denial of renewal will provide incentive the operators of the
restaurant to make the needed corrections.
ee D. Morrison
As ' stant County Attorney
LDM: ss
I ,
Hello