2000-10-11 Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. March reviewed with Council the letter received from the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division and requested direction from the Council as to how the City should respond. Council Member Sweeney inquired if this was the first known violation for the Trio Inn and, if so, what the business has done to ensure the violation will not occur again. Council Member Sweeney stated that in his opinion, if this incident is the first violation he would prefer not to fine the business. City Attorney Hoeft told the Council they were under no obligation, based on the letter, to impose a civil penalty. He indicated the letter should not be perceived as a threat to impose a penalty but noted the State of Minnesota does have the authority to impose a fine whether the City chooses to or not. Council Member Sweeney stated he would rather impose a nominal fine and not pull the business' license than have the State impose a higher fine and revoke the business' license. Council Member Broussard Vickers inquired as to how someone can be fined for being charged with an offense, but found not guilty. Attorney Hoeft explained the law does allow for civil penalty when you are charged with an offense. He used the example of when someone is arrested for DUI they are charged with an offense and lose their civil driving privilege. In some cases they are found not guilty but they have still lost their driving privilege. Mayor Wilharber noted the Council had waited until the matter was resolved in the courts and ruled that because the bartender was found not guilty they would not impose a fine. City Attorney Hoeft explained the State response recognizes there is a difference between being found not guilty of the offense and being innocent of noncompliance with the law. Mayor Wilharber indicated he would prefer the City impose a penalty rather than the State. Council Member Nelson stated she did not like the tone of the letter and expressed a desire to revisit the idea of fining the business. She indicated she felt that in light of the fact the business owner is not denying the violation, she feels there should have been a penalty imposed. Mayor Wilharber clarified the owner of the bar was not at the establishment when the violation occurred and the bartender was the one charged with the offense. City Attorney Hoeft said it may be possible to impose a nominal fine on the business to pre -empt action by the State. City Attorney Hoeft offered to research M.S. Chapter 340A.415 and bring a definitive answer to the Council at the next meeting. Page 9 of 12