CC_Minutes_2008_0211 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Councit Meeting Monday, February 11, 2008 Page 17 bevera¢es while a license is under suspension is revocation of its license. How- ever under MN Statutes 340A.402, Subd. 2, a person who has their intoxicating l~uor or 3 2 percent malt liquor license revoked is ineligible to get a liquor li- cense for five e It is not clear whether the City Cormcil, when it adopted the City Code im op Sn1g revocation for sale of alcohol during a license suspension, was aware of the state imposed mandator f~year suspension. The City Council finds that the five year penalty for revocation of a license to be unduly unitive for the business in this instance. Public Comment John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street Mr. Kysylyczyn expressed his opposition to the proposed recommendation; and expressed his disappointment that the City Council was going to reduce the pen- alty; opining that Roseville's penalties for selling alcohol to a minor were at the bottom of the scale compared to other metropolitan communities. Mr. Ky- sylyczyn opined that the Police Department had given a direct order to the busi- ness, which they failed to follow; and questioned what Davanni's had done for the community related to alcohol issues; further opining that they ranked near the top of the community's violators for alcohol sales to minors, with multiple compli- ance check failures. Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Pust spoke in opposition to the motion; noting that the distinction between the ordinance language and staff turnover was one issue; but when under suspension and there was a violation, then it became an issue of management. Councilmember Pust advised that her concern was not whether this was bad for business; but was about the regulation of under-age drinking, and advised that she would vote in favor or the presumptive penalty as proscribed by City Ordinance 302.15 and revocation, representing appropriate consequences and holding the firm to a standard of operations and knowledge. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the motion; opining that it sent a seri- ous message; and further opined that she was willing to go higher with a 60-day suspension and $2,000 fine. Councilmember Roe spoke against the motion as it now stands; opining that the City should impose the state-imposed maximum, given the serious nature of the violation, without revocation (60-days and $2,000 fine); however, he couldn't support afive-year license revocation. Councilmember Roe suggested that future Council discussion include reconsideration of ordinance language related to this penalty.