CCP 03-26-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-------------~ Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 3-12-90 Page 4 . LIQ. FEES (Cont'd) Attorney Filla explained conducting a liquor business is a privilege and over the years the State has recognized that the cities can raise revenue by regulating liquor, although that does not appear to relate to this proposed increase. He stated there does not have to be a . direct comparison between cost and license fee. Filla advised the City records are available to the public at all times and were available to the liquor establishment owners at least thirty days prior to this hearing and could have been made available to anyone requesting the information. Filla stated it was his opinion a strict accounting between costs and activity generated at any liquor establishment is not applicable. Flaherty advised it is his underBtanding of the law that a reasonable license fee may be charged but it has to cover the expenses of issuing the licenses and services of police/fire organizations. Filla explained Arden Hills does not raise revenue by issuing liquor licenses, however~ Arden Hills or any other city could utilize this method of raising revenue. Flaherty requested Council defer action until the liquor establishment owners review the information relating to costs. Councilmember Mahowald stated he did not believe the owners of liquor establishments would prefer the City to use a system whereby the costs for police and fire services are assessed directly in the amount of service to the liquor establishment. He agreed with Councilmember Malone that over the last four years the costs for providing municipal services to all businesses in the community, including liquor establishments have increased significantly and the City reviews . the fee schedule periodically for all licenses. Mayor Sather asked if there were any further comments from the floor. There was no response and the Mayor closed the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Attorney Filla advised the City Code states that license fees will be as established by Council from time-to-time and an amended Resolution should be prepared which indicates the fee increase. Councilmember Hansen questioned if the City costs for prosecution of a criminal offense are reimbursed after the case has been through court. Attorney Filla explained the City may be reimbursed for a portion of the costs if a fine is imposed; the portion of the fine reimbursed would not cover the cost of prosecution. He also stated if the violator serves a jail sentence a fine may not be imposed and there would be no reimbursement. Council discussed the possibility of reimbursing a llflat-ratell or a percentage of the liquor license fee if the employees of the licensed establishment complete an alcohol awareness program and deferring this matter until the next regular meeting in March. Councilmember Malone stated the Finance Committee has carefully studied this matter and in terms of the fee schedule for on-sale liquor license fees this represents an increase in a license fee that has not been changed in four years. . He did not object to consideration of a reduction in the fee in conjunction with completion of a drug/alcohol awareness program. Malone moved, seconded by Mahowald, to adopt Resolution No. 90-12, Establishing License and Permit Fees and Liability Insurance Requirements, increasing on-sale liquor license fees, effective April 1, and amending Resolution No. 87-63. M' i.on carried unanimously. (4-0)