CC_Minutes_2014_0127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, January 27, 2014 Page 23 guaranteed for the first five years. After that, Mr. Tron noted that the landlord would pay and have significant loss. Regarding public safety and health, Mr. Tron stated that he found the comments insulting, noting that they were considered the best operator in the United States, following rules and regulation, with the majority of those operations extremely successful, and out of the 100 stores, having minimal (i.e. 10-11 minor violations) across that number. Mr. Tron opined that this was a much better record than could be found elsewhere. Mr. Tron noted that their firm paid their cashiers bo- nuses to card individuals under age 30, 100% of the time; with over $1 million in bonuses paid out to-date. Mr. Tron opined that there was no danger in their oper- ations; and further opined that, if they were found to violate the privilege of being a license holder in Roseville, they fully respected and understood that the City Council had the right to take that license away. At the request of Mayor Roe, concluding testimony, City Attorney Gaughan pro- vided additional advice. Mr. Gaughan noted that, with the issue of the respondent and action of the Court of Appeals, an awkward scenario was created, with the City of Roseville's City Council operating as a quasi-judicial body but also a re- spondent to what occurs. Mr. Gaughan noted that the respondent also cites the trial court as the City Council, which obviously wasn't the case as referenced in his memorandum to the City Council, with the terminology not perfectly applying to these issues, with the City Council operating as an agency to take the place of a trial court but also able to be named as a respondent. Mr. Gaughan referenced case law from the City of Prior Lake v. MGM Liquors as an example, in which Ms. O'Neill Moreland had represented MGM Liquors. Mr. Gaughan opined that it was appropriate to consider Total Wine & Spirits as the respondent for the re- quest for a stay. Councilmember McGehee referenced some new facts included in tonight's pack- et, with undisclosed violations pending within the last five years, clearly a viola- tion of the City's ordinance causing the City not to be able to enforce its own reg- ulations by granting the transfer under those circumstances. Councilmember McGehee opined that she found this entire event unfortunate. Furthermore, Councilmember McGehee noted the date of the lease agreement date of Septem- ber 13, 2013; opining that this involved the City prematurely, a troubling business practice, especially since being a license holder was a privilege; and to her it seemed like the prudent thing to do would be to make sure the license was in place before signing a lease agreement; and that the City Council would not have any objection. Councilmember McGehee stated that she found that situation, combined with the failure to disclose the violations and further indication of a violation of the City's own code and questionable moral consequence in the community, to be very disappointing. Councilmember McGehee, referencing her review of other legal cases, opined that it appeared that the license holder was at- tempting to deflect or avoid action and permanent violations on their record,