2006_0410_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Neal Beets Apri15,2006 Page 3 Section 302.15 (C) of Code attempts to achieve consistency with the requirements of Minn. Stat. � 340A.415 by providing that any revocation or suspension of a Liquor license shall be preceded by a public hearing to be held by the Council on ten (10) days notice to the licensee. Given the varied Code provisions, existing Code, in our opinion, should be enforced, as it relates to presumptive civil fines as follows: 1. A violation warranting a presumptive fine only (no revocation or suspension) should be the subject of a staff recommendation to Council to either assess the presumptive fine, or depart up or downward based on extenuating or aggravating circumstances. n il would then determine the civil penalty to assess, up to the statutory $2,000 maximum. After review of Minn. Stat. � 340A.415 and �� 14.57 to 14.69, we believe that existing Code could be construed andlor applied 'm a fashion that may be inconsistent with Minn. Stat. � 340A.415. Consequently, we recommend Council consider modification to Code Section 302.15 (C) to define a process more facially consistent with law. As previously stated, Minn. Stat. � 340A.415 provides in pertinent part: .. No suspension or revocation takes effect until the licensee or permit holder has been given an opportunity for a hearing n r ti n 14 t 14 of the Administrative Procedures Act .... The cited provisions of the A.PA define the contested case procedures to be used 'm APA-type hearings. Section 302.1 S�C), as currently written, indicates the Council shall hold the hearing itself and, sua sponte, impose a suspension or revocation. However, Minn. Stat. � 14.61 seems to contemplate that the hearing officer(s} would not a member of the Council. That law indicates that the hearing officer would, after the hearing, prepare a report and recommendation, which would be available at least 10 days before the Council's decision on the appeal. While the statute indicates the City need not utilize the State Office of Administrative Hearings in conducting revocation/suspensian hearings, we believe an independent hearing officer, rather than the Council, should conduct hearings. Given the above, we recommend that Code Section 302.1 S(C} be rewritten to ingrain the following concepts: