CC_Minutes_2009_0720 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 20, 2009 Page 15 e. Discussion of Possible Presumptive Penalty Liquor Code Revisions Mayor Klausing noted past experiences in applying the ordinance language and potential ramifications based on State law. Roseville Police Captain Rick Mathwig provided a history of Davanni's compli- ance failures in past; history ofnon-compliance; and follow-up failure during sus- pension; and implications based on a parallel state statute requiring that the li- cense holder would be barred from receiving a liquor license for a period of five years following revocation. Captain Mathwig noted the opinion provided by the City Attorney's office dated June 30, 2009, and made a part of the agenda packet, outlining options for the City to consider. A copy of City Code, Chapter 302, entitled, "Liquor Control," was provided as a bench handout. Discussion included those options available; balancing the City's strong desire for compliance with the interests of the business owner; after-hours sale and illegal gambling on the premises as other concerns; suggestion by Councilmember Roe fora 60-day suspension and presumptive penalty of $2,000 as an intermediary step for sales following revocation; ramifications of sales to minors and the poten- tial for other crimes; clarifying the intent of revised language for service to any- one, not just minors; changing City training to mandatory rather than discretion- ary; lack of staff for training to be provided consistently by the City; and ensuring that there is no lack of transparency on the City Council's part in applying penal- ties across the board and not specific to each instance. Further discussion included available research and background information on the City's rationale for discretionary rather than mandatory city training; city- approved versus city-provided training; due process considerations in balancing applicable guidelines and recognizing facts surrounding specific violations that maybe unique, allowing for flexibility rather than absolutes; and qualifications of company-sponsored training. Councilmember Pust expressed her consternation with the ordinance as written; and suggested that the City start over in drafting a new ordinance. Further discussion and provisions of the ordinance included the need for a review of penalties, and making those stricter, while still allowing for Council discretion; evaluation of whether the concept of city training being the only way to ensure adequate training has been provided, and whether to provide incentive for lesser penalties if that training is mandatory and completed; training available outside that of the City that maybe just as applicable and/or desirable; verifying and clari- fying thb written documenting process for compliance checks and follow-up; re- view of the entire penalty scheme with a minimum presumptive penalty; and rec-