2002-07-10 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Teresa Bender From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Chief Joel Heckman [jheckman@centenniallakespd.com] Wednesday, June 26, 2002 5:28 PM Tim and Beth Swedberg ksykes@centervillemn.com Re: Draft Liquor Ordinance Tim/Kim-Deputy Chief Makela and I have reviewed the proposed ordinance and have a couple of concerns: 1. Section l3-H.a Requirement of Chief. Violation for failure to comply by Oct 15th becomes a misdemeanor crime chargeable to the Chief. Please reword this. Council may request the chief to provide during the month of October each year....or something similar. 2. Section l3-H.b This is troublesome for two reasons. The time involved in researching all citations issued for a three year time frame to see if they were related to a local establishment, i.e. a party is arrested in the 7200 block of Main St. but in checking the report, it is unknown if the person was at the Waterworks, Kelly's or if they were en route home from the St. Paul Champs etc. The other issue is the requirement to identify an establishment as involved in a traffic stop without proof places the police in a adversarial role not to mention a civil litigation role should the establishment challenge the report in court. 3. We think sections 18 and 19 are good-but 18 is worded such that the owner of the business may be charged criminally as well as civilly for any violation. IF that is the intent of the city-ok but I don't know if the city attorney could prosecute in court without proving that the owner intended or knew that the employee was violating the criminal law. Additionally, "every licensee shall also cooperate with the City in controlling activity attributable to the business in surrounding areas is vague and difficult to enforce. The area of enforcement should be defined so it will stand up in court if challenged. 4. Section 22 f. This also is vague and difficult to enforce or win in court if challenged. How will we prove that knowledge was there and the licensee intentionally failed to report? 5. Best practices-We have a lot of issues here. Of utmost concern is the administrative hearing by the Chief. Very time consuming and possibly inappropriate if criminal charges are also in process against licensee or an employee. Sec. 28 h. Notification. This should come from the city attorney as it is his final decision on charging. He mayor may not decide to go ahead with charges. Only until he makes the final determination should the letters go out. Regarding compliance checks. " Police dept. shall conduct two checks each year." If the police are unable to conduct two (for valid reasons) are they in violation of ordinance? If police violate a requirement of the ordinance without consequences would the Centerville business owners feel that there is a double standard? I will be gone on vacation until July 8th. We can discuss the above upon my return or you can feel free to discuss this with Deputy Chief Makela. Thank you for allowing us input on this. -Joel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim and Beth Swedberg" <mayacat@qwest.net> To: "MARI NELSON" <mari@withkindness.com>i "Linda Broussard-Vickers" <lbroussardvickers@earthlink.net>; "Dick Travis" <dicktravis@hotmail.com>: "Mary Capra" <dcapra@visi.com>; "Tim Swedberg" <mayacat@qwest.net>i "Kim Moore-Sykes" <ksykes@centervillemn.com>; "James Hoeft" <jhoeft@bgslaw.com>; "Teresa Bender" <tbender@centervillemn.com>; <jheckman@centenniallakespd.com> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 12:38 PM Subject: Draft Liquor Ordinance > For your review...the proposed liquor ordinance. 1 I_H_ _