2008_0616_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CONCLUSIONS- 1.. The Administrative Lair ,fudge and the Roseville city council have jurisdiction in this case.3 2. Davanni's received' timely and proper notice of the hearing, and the city 4 has complied with all procedural requirements of statute and rule. 3. The city council has authority to deny, suspend,- or revolve a- license and to impose penalties for the violation of applicable statutes and rules. The city may impose a penalty up to a 60-day suspension and a coo fine for any violation of the ordinances governing the sale of alcoholic beverages; the presumptive penalty for violation of an ord i nanGe governing the sale of alcoholic beverages during a suspension of the license is revocation of the license. 4. The city has the burden of proving that the Licensee violated the applicable provisions of state law and city ordinance by a preponderance of the evidence. Davanni's has stipulated that it sold- an alcoholic, beverage while its license was under suspension. The city's burden of proof has been met. 5. The city has the discretion to- impose a lesser sanction rather than to revoke Davanni's liquor license. In this instance; the city Council tools into account the nature of the violation and the effect of the proposed penalty and reasonably exercised its discretion to impose a 60-day suspension and coo penalty. it did, not abuse its discretion by failing to impose a lover penalty. 6. Any of the foregoing Finding- of Facts more properly termed as a Conclusion is hereby adopted as a conclusion. Based on the foregoing conclusions, the Administrative Lave Judge males the following, RECOMMENDATION IT IS RECOMMENDED: that- the city of Roseville impose a fine of coo and suspend Davanni's license to sell alcoholic beverages for 60 days. Dated: April 30th, 2008 11!WAA./6 BEVEF DIES HEY E Admin. ' r ire Law u d Digitally Recorded-., -.. 04012008 3 Roseville city code § 302.15 c} Minn. stat. § 14.55. 4 See Minn. Stat., §§ 1.57 - 14.61; Roseville city code . 302.15 C. 4