2008_0616_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MEMORANDUM The Roseville city code spells out the presumptive penalties for violation of the ordinances governing sale of alcoholic beverages.. Davanni's is aware of the ordinances and aware that penalties gill be imposed for violations. When faced with the presumptive penalty of license revocation, the city council appropriately reviewed the facts and the severity of the sanction and exercised its discretion to impose a much less severe penalty. Although Davanni's asserts that the penalty is still too stiff for the size of its business and the volume of its sales of alcoholic beverages, it is apparent that the City council intends to send a strong signal that it will enforce the ordinances and impose significant penalties-. Davanni's claims that the city council was unduly influenced by the public testimony of the former mayor who was critical of Davanni's past compliance with the liquor control ordinances. Mr. stenson questioned whether the public had a right to comment on the proposed penalty. Nothing prohibits the city council from considering public comment in reaching a decision, so long as it has a reasonable basis for the action that it tales. Although Mr. stenson notes the critical testimony of the former mayor, one of the city council members was similarly critical of Davanni:'s past compliance and argued for the stiffer penalty of revocation. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the city council was unduly influenced by the public comments.- Although the city manager suggested a smaller penalty, the city council did not abuse its discretion by imposing a penalty that exceeded that recommendation. There is no inherent right to sell alcohol is beverages or hold a I iquor Ilcense.5 Municipal authorities have broad discretion to determine the manner in which liquor licenses are regulated, and when fines are unposed, the review is limited to whether the City a -cted capriciously-, arbitrarily or oppressively,6 There is nothing i -.n this record to shover that the city Council failed to take into account the circumstances relevant to Davanni's, including its lour volume of liquor sales, nor does the size of Davanni's make the imposed sanction inherently unreasonable. Even though the penalty was greater than the city manager recommended, it was far less severe than the presumptive penalty of revocation. The city council `f=ully considered the penalty to be imposed. It reasonably weighed mitigating factors in deciding to reduce the presumptive penalty of revocation to impose a 60-day suspension and 000 fine. Although there is nothing to prevent the city Council upon further reflection from taking into account Davanni's request for a lover Pena -lty based on its sales vol.0 rye, there is no basis to conclude that failure to do so would be an abuse of the city council's discretion. 13J.H. Sabel v. City of Minneapolls, 265 Minn. 166, 120 N.W. 2d 871, 875 (MIn. 1963). 6 Id.,- Bourbon fear & af6- Corp. u. City of Saint Paul, 466 N.1 . d 438 (Minn. App. '1 981).