× Expand Todd Hubler

In a nearly empty courtroom on Aug. 7, the city of Madison quietly tried to undo its nearly two-year clash with Taco Bell Cantina over an alcohol license.  It lost the latest salvo — even with its former legal adversary on its side. 

Dane County Circuit Court Judge Rhonda Lanford denied the city’s motion to vacate her December 2018 decision granting Taco Bell Cantina a license to sell beer, wine and booze slushies at its State Street location.  The city initially appealed but in April reached a settlement with franchise owners Bell Great Lakes.  City Attorney Michael May said the city was no longer interested in this fight. 

“We have a new mayor.  A new council, almost half of which is new,” May said at the hearing. “ My client changed its legal position and wanted the case ended.” 

As part of the agreement with Bell Great Lakes, the franchise had to join the city in its motion to vacate — legally void — Lanford’s initial ruling.  May said the purpose was to “wipe the record clean.” 

“But why?”  asked Lanford. 

“One of our concerns is we believe we’ll be seeing this case used against us — whether it’s precedent or not — in future decisions with licenses,” responded May. “[Taco Bell Cantina] got [its] license….  The other side doesn’t need the judgment anymore.” 

Lanford wasn’t persuaded. 

“A decision that states that I need to vacate this so the city is protected from it being used in future cases is not compelling to me,” said Lanford before denying the motion. 

The attorney for Bell Great Lakes declined a request for comment.  Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Zilavy tells Isthmus that even though the motion was rejected, the city still considers it a win. 

“The judge stated on the record that the decision has no precedential value since it is a circuit court decision,” Zilavy writes in an email. “ So in essence, we get the result we were looking for in spite of our motion being denied.” 

So why did May say on the record he was concerned the decision could be used against the city? 

“We do not want to get into our legal strategy,” says Zilavy. “ We saw a benefit to having a clean slate.” 

The Taco Bell Cantina saga started in late 2017 when then-Mayor Paul Soglin vetoed the restaurant’s beer and wine license.  The Alcohol License Review Committee and the city council had both approved the license provided that alcohol would only be 5 percent of total sales and that the taps would be shut off at 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and 10 p.m. other days. 

The city council — twice — unsuccessfully tried to override the veto.  Soglin cited concern for “public safety” and the cost of law enforcement as reasons for denying the license request.  Soglin told The Capital Times in December 2017, “There is absolutely no reason you can’t simply say no” to a liquor license. 

However, in Lanford’s 2018 decision she concluded the city acted “arbitrarily and capriciously.”  Shortly after rejecting Taco Bell Cantina’s license, the city approved beer and wine permits for Chen’s Dumpling House, Hungry Badger and Koi Sushi — which are also on the 500 block of State. “ The problem with the city’s action is not that it did not have the discretion to act in this manner under the law,” Lanford ruled. “ The problem is that it did not then apply this policy consistently.” 

Soglin did attempt to impose a moratorium on issuing alcohol licenses downtown in early December 2018.  It was unanimously rejected by the council.  Ald.  Paul Skidmore, a member of the ALRC, says you can’t blame Soglin for the inconsistency cited by Lanford. 

“I think Paul gave up,” says Skidmore. “ He knew the council wasn’t supporting him on anything.” 

Skidmore says a representative from Taco Bell Cantina has publicly said the restaurant intends to come back for a full liquor license so it can serve its “Twisted Freezes” with shots of rum, vodka or tequila, which are a prominent offering at the chain’s flagship Cantina in Las Vegas. 

“Liquor licenses are not a right, they are a privilege,” says Skidmore. “ I am concerned [about Lanford’s ruling] because it’s now another reason for a business to say, ‘Hey they got a license.  We want one, too.” 

Editor’s note: Isthmus Editor Judith Davidoff is Rhonda Lanford’s partner.  Davidoff had no involvement in writing or editing this article.