My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_1205
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_1205
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2011 1:40:35 PM
Creation date
12/27/2011 1:40:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
12/5/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,December 05, 2011 <br /> Page 16 <br /> Nays: None. <br /> Councilmember Pust advised that she didn't have the previously-submitted back- <br /> ground information and questioned if the item should be deferred until she had an <br /> opportunity to review that information again, or if she could get a copy from Lt. <br /> Rosand tonight. <br /> Mayor Roe clarified that the issue was whether those two (2) establishments met <br /> training requirements as required by the City for their managers and servers. <br /> Lt. Rosand concurred with Mayor Roe's summary. <br /> Councilmember Pust advised that she needed to know the history of violations at <br /> each establishment and review a copy of the City's liquor ordinance and penalty <br /> tiers. <br /> Mayor Roe advised that action had been taken at a previous meeting regarding the <br /> mandatory penalty as recommended by City ordinance; and that tonight's decision <br /> was whether or not to renew these licenses based on their failure to meet training <br /> Councilmember Pust opined that non-renewal still fit into the City Council's stat- <br /> utory scheme unlike the lifetime State of Minnesota ban. <br /> City Manager Malinen reviewed provisions of City ordinance versus State statute; <br /> and the City Council's intent when it reviewed this ordinance to find a solution <br /> between those provisions. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding the level of suspension and length of time for such a <br /> suspension; timing for reapplication in the future by the applicant(s); and guid- <br /> ance for them and staff. <br /> City Attorney Mark Gaughan noted the state of City Code as it currently stands; <br /> with the City Council having the option of not renewing, but silent on those re- <br /> sults and the next step; and suggested that the City could choose not to renew at <br /> this time and set a date to reconsider renewal. City Attorney Gaughan noted the <br /> City Council's recent amendment to City Code to include renewal as part of the <br /> Hearing process and if a licensee is suspended, they are put on notice of potential <br /> City Council action and ten (10) days for their request for an independent hearing <br /> officer to hear their case. Mr. Gaughan noted that renewal was one of those trig- <br /> gering events. <br /> Councilmember Pust opined that the ordinance needed further amendment to ad- <br /> dress re-application; otherwise the City didn't have any recourse in an applicant <br /> reapplying or in a continuous cycle of reapplication. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.