The owner of Logan’s Madtown Restaurant and Bar’s said Thursday he will not surrender the bar’s liquor license, forcing the city to move forward with a revocation process.
Owner Joe Bendetti closed Logan’s Monday night before the city’s Alcohol License Review Committee held a hearing on the city’s charges against the bar for violating its liquor license in addition to a city alcohol ordinance.
“As of right now, we are closed, and we will not be surrendering our liquor license,” Bendetti said.
An audit requested by the Madison Police Department showed that from May 2011 to May 2012, 67 percent of Logan’s revenue came from alcohol, while only 33 percent came from food and non-alcoholic beverages.
Logan’s license and the Alcohol License Density Ordinance requires at least 50 percent of the bar’s profits to come from food and non-alcoholic beverages.
While Bendetti acknowledged the bar did not meet the liquor license requirements, he said he “made every effort” to comply with the rules.
“My crime was selling $360,000 worth of food,” Bendetti said. “How much food are they going to sell this year? Zero.”
The city’s Food and Alcohol Policy Coordinator Mark Woulf said Bendetti has “not been cooperative” in the city’s audit and revocation process.
The city has not heard from Bendetti since he applied for the original license in 2009, according to Woulf. Additionally, Bendetti did not appear for the revocation hearing Tuesday.
If Bendetti does not surrender the license, the city will revoke it within 15 days of the ALRC’s meeting Dec. 4, meaning the next tenant using the location at 322 W. Johnson St. will not be able to apply for a liquor license for a full calendar year, according to Woulf.
“Certainly, from a city perspective, we would like to see something to go in [that location] in a sooner time,” Woulf said.
Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, said it is not in the interest of the city to revoke the license because it “all but guarantees the building would remain vacant for a year” because of the one-year prohibition period.
“I think revocation would be patently unfair to the owners’ prospective tenants and the greater community,” Verveer said.
