Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Neal Beets <br />Apri15,2006 <br />Page 4 <br />A violation involving a presumptive revocation or suspension would, <br />lilce violations involving a presumptive fine only, be the subject of a <br />staff recommendation to Council. Staff would notify the violator of <br />its proposed recommendation. <br />2. The Council, based on staffs recommendation,would determine the <br />appropriate length of the license suspension, or resolve to revolce the <br />license. <br />3. The violator would be given notice of the proposed action of the <br />Council, and would be given an opportunity to appeal the penalty <br />within 10 days of the notice. <br />4. If an appeal is properly talcen, an independent hearing examiner <br />would be designated by the Council to hear the appeal, and malce a <br />report and recommendationto the Council per Sections 14.5? to <br />14.69 of the APA. <br />The Council would consider the IHQ's recommendation and issue <br />its final decision on the appeal. <br />The above process would, in our opinion, be more consistent with Minn. Stat. � <br />340A.415. While an argument might exist that the Council could itself hold the APA hearings <br />on liquor violation appeals, we believe that requiring the Council to hold hearings with all the <br />requisite APA formalities would appear to pose an undue burden on the Council's proper <br />function. <br />Council Member IY�Ian posed two specific questions that are legal in nature. First, <br />whether City Code currently allows for appealing liquor citations to the City Manager. <br />Second, whether a violator must be afforded appeal rights andlor a public hearing. <br />To address the first question, the Code, as currently written, indicates the n il is the <br />sanctioning body, both as to fines and as to suspensian/revocatians. We believe the role of <br />staff should be advisory in nature, recommending fines and/or suspensions and revocations as <br />circumstances dictate. <br />With regard to the second question, the answers are set forth in the discussion herein. <br />We believe Code should be rewritten to more closely follow the process established by Minn. <br />Stat. � 340A.415. The statute does, on its face, require the City to provide a hearing process <br />� <br />