Controversy Still Brews in Dormont Around Canceled Beer Garden

The Beer Garden has been eliminated from Saturday’s but questions are still bubbling about whether it should have ever been permitted in 2009 and 2010.

, with only Councilman Drew Lehman opposed, not to allow the Beer Garden at this weekend's event. Council took its vote after two bar owners complained about revenues they lost because of the borough-endorsed Beer Garden, which sold craft beers, competing with their businesses.

The first year (2009), the Beer Garden raised money for the borough recreation department but the second year (2010), after the borough was denied a special state permit to serve alcohol only several days before the event, Friends of Dormont Pool stepped in as an eligible nonprofit organization to allow the event to stay afloat.

But Councilwoman Joan Hodson said the issues run deeper than that. 

She began to question the legality of the Beer Garden last fall after the event, when council was asked to retroactively approve bill payments for alcohol, the Allegheny County beverage tax and a reimbursement to Friends of the Dormont Pool for alcohol purchases.

“I noticed some things on the warrant lists,” she said.

What raised Hodson’s interest was when borough council was shown the list of monthly bills paid by the borough at the October and November 2010, and January 2011 council meetings. The general fund account shows:

• $1,313 paid to Wilson-McGinley Inc. for street fair alcohol purchase on Oct. 11.

• $252.91 paid to Allegheny County Treasurer John Weinstein for street fair alcoholic beverage tax on Nov. 24.

• $600.82 paid to Friends of Dormont Pool, listed as a reimbursement for alcohol purchase on Dec. 10.

Hodson began to question why the borough was paying for the alcohol or the taxes when this was supposed to be an event for which the Friends of Dormont Pool held the permits.

"We collected all the money," explained borough Manager Gino Rizza, so the borough paid the bills.

Sarann Fisher, Friends of the Dormont Pool treasurer, said the group needed to secure both liquor and general liability insurance policies costing "a few thousand dollars," which she said was paid by the borough.

"The borough paid for the beer out of the beer sales," Fisher said.

The $600.82 listed as a reimbursement for alcohol purchase was actually the Friends' share of the profits, which were split equally with the borough, Fisher said.

After filing a right-to-know request with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Hodson said she also became disturbed by some discrepancies that occurred over how the papers were filed initially.

In 2009, then-recreation director Juliet Cameron submitted an “Application for Special Permit” with the liquor control board that listed Dormont Borough as the applicant. She also submitted a personal check to cover the cost of the permit.

Cameron listed the type of group applying as a “nonprofit organization for architectural heritage protection.” In an accompanying letter, Dormont Manager Gino Rizza listed the mission of the street fair as promoting and protecting the “architectural heritage and economic stability of businesses in Dormont Borough’s local business district.”

On Sept. 30, 2009, the PLCB granted the permit, stating, “Authorization is granted for the sale and consumption of liquor and/or malt or brewed beverages at the special event as a means of raising funds as provided by Section 408.4 of the Liquor Code.”

However, according to other PLCB documents, a borough government is not listed as an “eligible entity.”

“Dormont Borough should have never been issued a permit for the event,” Hodson said.

The PLCB was contacted for this story on Oct. 3 but has not responded with the requested information as to why the event was approved the first year.

"I didn't know we weren't allowed to have it," said Rizza, noting the 2009 PLCB approval.

In 2010, Rizza filled out the special permit application with the borough as applicant, as had been done the year before. However, instead of checking the box for “nonprofit organization for architectural heritage protection,” he checked “other” and typed in “Local Municipality Annual Street Fair.”

Rizza also completed an application for exemption of state or local sales and use tax. In fact, he said, he thought everything was fine as the borough completed the paperwork "way ahead" of the event. The PLCB stamp on the application shows an Aug. 10, 2010 date of receipt.

On Sept. 7, 2010, Lisa Travitz, chief of the PLCB’s licensing evaluation division, wrote to the borough: “It has been determined that more information is needed regarding the eligibility of your organization.” She pointed out the list of eligible entities and asked for supporting documentation.

“He (Rizza) filled the information out correctly and it was denied for the correct reason,” Hodson said.

Travitz wrote in another letter that a special occasion permit was issued on Sept. 20, 2010, but as the borough did not qualify as an eligible entity, the permit was rescinded.

Rizza said, with the Beer Garden already advertised, he "scrambled" to find an eligible group to sponsor the event, first contacting the , Dormont Main Street and then Dormont Athletic Boosters Association, all of which turned down the request.

At that point, Rizza said, he asked Friends of Dormont Pool, which agreed.

"Nobody else would do it," Fisher said, adding there were literally "days" in which to get everything approved.

Fisher said she went to the borough building and signed off on the applications that Rizza had prepared. Hodson questioned why the application still said "Dormont Borough" on the applicant line when Friends of the Pool was now sponsoring the event, but Fisher and Rizza both said it was simply a mistake that was not caught before the application was submitted.

Rizza also changed the type of group back to “Nonprofit organization for architectural heritage protection," as it had been on the 2009 application.

In a second letter dated Sept. 24, 2010, Rizza wrote a letter “To Whom It May Concern,” stating the borough is “pleased to support” the request of Friends of the Dormont Pool for the special event permit for the Oct. 9 event. The letter states the event “is a cooperative venture between the Friends of Dormont Pool and the Dormont Recreation Department.”

That was enough to get the event approved by the PLCB.

While the bar owners felt it was unfair for the Beer Garden to compete against them, Hodson said she feels it would also have been unfair for the Friends of Dormont Pool to continue to benefit from the event when there are "many other deserving organizations in the borough" that might also benefit from the money.

Kim Lusardi, council president, said the PLCB is to blame for the fact that the event was approved in the first place. But that had nothing to do with why she's voted against the event for the second year in a row.

"I just don't want to go against the businesses," she said.