The operator of The Cave, the large nightclub inside The Oread hotel, has pleaded guilty to four counts of violating the state law prohibiting establishments from giving away free liquor or advertising free liquor. But information from the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Control division shows the nightclub received a smaller penalty than once envisioned.

According to the details of a recently released settlement, the operator of The Cave — Kangaroo LLC — was required to pay a $2,000 fine. State prosecutors agreed to drop their previous penalty recommendation that the nightclub be forced to close for two weekend days of business.

If you remember, the allegations against The Cave came to light after the bar posted a series of tweets that caused local officials to bemoan that the bar was promoting irresponsible drinking. The Journal-World in March reported that The Cave’s Twitter account repeatedly posted a photo of a man who appears to have passed out in a bar booth and wet his pants. The photo was accompanied by language promoting the bar’s frequent $1 drink nights.

Other posts by the establishment included one that said “alcoholism isn’t a real thing until after college,” and about the need for “blackout buckets” at the nightclub. Those posts sparked concern from leaders who are concerned about alcohol abuse, but other tweets advertising free liquor may have been more at the heart of the ABC investigation.

The Cave’s social media accounts on multiple occasions advertised that “ladies drink free” until 10:30 p.m. on Fridays. Other postings announced the winners of free punch cards that could be redeemed for alcoholic drinks. State law doesn’t allow nightclubs to provide free drinks.

According to the settlement agreement, ABC officials dropped their demand that The Cave be shut down for two days after it became clear that the case was going to proceed to an evidentiary hearing stage. As reported by the Journal-World in December, officials with ABC and the nightclub reached a tentative settlement just prior to a Dec. 11 evidentiary hearing. ABC officials at that time declined to release the details of the settlement. The department provided the Journal-World a copy of the settlement late Wednesday.

The news of the settlement comes at the same time that the Oread hotel’s sister property — The Eldridge — is seeking a 95 percent, 15-year property tax abatement for an expansion of its downtown hotel. The expansion will include new rooms, but also will include additional restaurant and drinking establishment space.

Members of the public have asked whether the city will take any steps to ensure that public tax breaks aren’t used to support drinking establishments that violate the law in ways that The Cave did. So far, city commissioners have not publicly addressed the issue.

Lawrence resident Dan Dannenberg at the City Commission’s Feb. 10 meeting asked a series of questions about how the city could assure the public that tax abatements wouldn’t be used to support a drinking establishment like The Cave, which he noted had required a high level of police calls in recent years. Commissioners indicated that they would get answers to Dannenberg’s questions, but they never addressed the subject again during their Feb. 10 meeting, and they also did not address the subject when they again discussed The Eldridge incentives at this week’s meeting.

The idea of whether the city should have some ability to withhold tax incentives when a business breaks the law or is the site of frequent unruly behavior — The Cave has required several large scale deployments of the city’s police force to break up fights outside the establishment — came up last year. The Oread and The Cave receive significant tax breaks. The Oread property receives about $500,000 a year in public tax incentives, and is scheduled to receive city-approved tax breaks for about 15 more years.

After the allegations against The Cave emerged in March, several city commissioners expressed interest in adding language to the city’s tax incentive policies that would allow the city to reduce or cancel tax incentives for projects that have caused public safety problems.

City staff members in April did propose language that would give the city the ability to reduce or cancel incentives for projects that cause public safety problems. The language was inserted into a proposed agreement for a seven-story apartment and office building that is proposed for the northeast corner of Ninth and New Hampshire streets. But commissioners removed the language after the development group objected that it could jeopardize the financing of the project. Commissioners agreed that the new language was too much of a last-minute addition to the project, but commissioners said they were still interested in adding the language to future projects. Commissioners directed the city’s Public Incentive Review Committee to study the issue. The PIRC did have a discussion on the topic, and some concerns were raised that the language could have a chilling effect on the ability of developers to finance future projects.

But the debate, to my recollection, ended there. Normally, items discussed at PIRC make their way to the City Commission for discussion. I don’t believe that has ever been the case with that topic. As noted previously, the topic hasn’t gotten any discussion by city commissioners as they have debated the incentives package for The Eldridge.

But the process isn’t quite done yet. City commissioners must still give final approval to the tax incentive package at their March 10 meeting.

• That March 10 vote of the commission was thought to be primarily procedural in nature. Ordinances have to get read to two times at City Hall. Normally the first reading is when all the debate takes place, and the second reading is pretty much just a technicality. But now commissioners may want to reopen the debate. Douglas County commissioners last night approved an 85 percent, 15-year tax abatement for the project. City commissioners approved a 95 percent tax abatement.

Nancy Longhurst, general manager for The Eldridge, was quoted after last night’s meeting as saying she thought the 85 percent abatement “will work for us.” That is a different message than what she delivered to city commissioners a day earlier. On Tuesday, Mayor Mike Amyx asked if the 95 percent abatement was absolutely critical to the project.

“For the scope of this project, that is what it is absolutely going to take to make this happen,” Longhurst said. “We’re firm on that.”

Maybe Longhurst just meant that 95 percent from the city was critical. Why the project would need a larger tax abatement from the city than the county, however, is unclear. The property tax bill from the county actually is larger on the project than the property tax bill from the city. The county has a significantly higher mill levy than the city.

Amyx did ask Longhurst specifically what would happen if the county or the school board — which will debate the issue on Monday — decided on a lower tax abatement percentage. Longhurst said she wasn’t sure. We’ll see if the question comes up again at the commission’s March 10 meeting.

• Speaking of questions, Lawrence city commission and school board candidates will start answering them at candidate forums. The largest city commission candidate forum of the primary season is set for Monday. The Voter Education Coalition and Channel 6 will host a forum at 6 p.m. on Monday at the Lawrence Public Library. The forum will be taped and rebroadcast on Channel 6 several times before the March 3 primary.

At 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday at Merchants Pub & Plate, 746 Massachusetts, the VEC and the online radio station LawrenceHits.com will host a forum for school board candidates.

The date also has been set for a large city commission candidate forum after the primary. The six remaining candidates in the race will be asked to participate in a forum hosted by the VEC at 8:45 a.m. on March 7 at Maceli’s, 1031 New Hampshire.