Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. March reviewed with Council the letter received from the Alcohol and <br />Gambling Enforcement Division and requested direction from the Council as to <br />how the City should respond. <br /> <br />Council Member Sweeney inquired if this was the first known violation for the <br />Trio Inn and, if so, what the business has done to ensure the violation will not <br />occur again. Council Member Sweeney stated that in his opinion, if this incident <br />is the first violation he would prefer not to fine the business. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft told the Council they were under no obligation, based on the <br />letter, to impose a civil penalty. He indicated the letter should not be perceived as <br />a threat to impose a penalty but noted the State of Minnesota does have the <br />authority to impose a fine whether the City chooses to or not. <br /> <br />Council Member Sweeney stated he would rather impose a nominal fine and not <br />pull the business' license than have the State impose a higher fine and revoke the <br />business' license. <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers inquired as to how someone can be fined for <br />being charged with an offense, but found not guilty. Attorney Hoeft explained the <br />law does allow for civil penalty when you are charged with an offense. He used <br />the example of when someone is arrested for DUI they are charged with an <br />offense and lose their civil driving privilege. In some cases they are found not <br />guilty but they have still lost their driving privilege. <br /> <br />Mayor Wilharber noted the Council had waited until the matter was resolved in <br />the courts and ruled that because the bartender was found not guilty they would <br />not impose a fine. City Attorney Hoeft explained the State response recognizes <br />there is a difference between being found not guilty of the offense and being <br />innocent of noncompliance with the law. <br /> <br />Mayor Wilharber indicated he would prefer the City impose a penalty rather than <br />the State. <br /> <br />Council Member Nelson stated she did not like the tone of the letter and <br />expressed a desire to revisit the idea of fining the business. She indicated she felt <br />that in light of the fact the business owner is not denying the violation, she feels <br />there should have been a penalty imposed. <br /> <br />Mayor Wilharber clarified the owner of the bar was not at the establishment when <br />the violation occurred and the bartender was the one charged with the offense. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft said it may be possible to impose a nominal fine on the <br />business to pre-empt action by the State. City Attorney Hoeft offered to research <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />Page 9 of 12 <br />