CC_Minutes_2008_0728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RE: Agenda Item No. 12.b Consider Amending City Code Chapter 302.13; Off-sale Liquor License Requirements Dear Mr. Miller: I received an email from the city yesterday stating that you are bringing an item before the Roseville City Council to consider amending the city code relative to off-sale liquor licenses. It is with great regret that my husband and I will not be available to attend Monday night's meeting so I will share with you our feelings on this agenda item. As I read through your "Request for Council Action" I found many areas of your staff report to contain ambiguous statements and vague statistics. Let me enlighten you to some of those ambiguities. First beginning with line 26 of your item, it states that there are "some potential conflicts with regard to allowing an open and free marketplace, fostering investment in the community, attracting retailers that serve unmet demands, and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens." There are currently 10 off-sale licenses in Roseville, with only one of the licenses being available to issue. How can a community of only 33,000 to 34,000 residents need more than 10 off-sale liquor stores? How can you say that the demands for liquor are unmet? Do you think that the current off-sale license holders in Roseville have not invested in their community? Our particular store has been in business in Roseville at the same location since 1991 and the original owner was in business elsewhere in Roseville before moving into the current location. In line'29 you state that "because we have multiple suitors vying for the last remaining license, it appears inevitable that the Council will have to deny one or more future applicants - conceivably one that might be highly desired." Does this mean that a big box store is more "highly desired" over a small business? I think it appears on the outside to be a bit discriminating in just that statement alone. In line 33 you state "the Council is advised to consider this potential dilemma prior to issuing the final license." Why is this a dilemma - because you would rather have the big box store get the last license before the small business person? It should be a first- come, first-serve basis and there would be no "dilemma" for anyone. Whichever applicant has all their "ducks in a row" first, meaning they have a viable, properly zoned location, the application completed, contingent leases ready to go, if applicable, pending insurance, and gets it submitted to the city for consideration - they should be the one considered for the available license, not the applicant who appears to be the most "desirable" to Council. Liquor is liquor and saying one or the other can or cannot meet the unmet demands is absurd. In line 44 you gave "possible" reasons for Roseville setting the maximum of 10 off-sale licenses. Although it is true that state statue allows cities to regulate or set the number of off-sale liquor licenses, most cities use good socio and economic prudence in setting the number of licenses to be issued. Even back in 1984 when the sitting Council established a maximum of 10 licenses, it was perhaps a bit overzealous but it only states a maximum of 10 licenses. No where does it state the Council must issue all 10 licenses. There is no way that Roseville had 10 liquor stores back in 1984 - in fact if there were any off-sale stores at all, they were probably municipally owned. One of the current off- sale license holders today is the same person who received the first "privately" issued off-sale license in Roseville in 1984 after Ordinance No. 956 was enacted. He made a major investment in his business based upon the fact that there would not be more than 10 licenses ever i ssued. My husband and I made that same major, life-changing investment almost 5 years ago under that same pretense of a maximum of 10 licenses. In line 56 you refer back to the public hearing in November 2005 where "prospective retailers who were considering establishing a retail presence in Roseville that would include alcoholic beverages in addition to other product lines." Let me tell you something related to state law that governs off-sale liquor licenses. You cannot sell other "product lines" in an off-sale liquor store other than items related specifically to the sale of liquor such as corkscrews, shot glasses, can coolers, olives, mixes such as bloody Mary mix and soda. The only non-alcohol related item we can offer for sale in an off-sale liquor store is cigarettes/tobacco products. Off-sale liquor licensees cannot, and I repeat, CANNOT, sell "other product" lines that are not directly related to liquor. 2