Laserfiche WebLink
September 17,2001 <br />Mr. Reno Knight <br />Proprietor <br />Outbacic Steakllouse <br />2� 81 Snellaz�g Avenue North <br />Roseville, Minnesota 55113 <br />Re: Liquor Violation <br />Dear Mr. Knight, <br />I am responding to your objection to a one-day suspension and $500 fine for serving <br />alcohol to a minor. <br />_ Your position is as follows: You don't believe you personally could have done anything <br />_ differently to prevent the violation fr��n occun•ii��. The Outback has been operating at its <br />current Roseville location for four years. During that time, Outback has failed a liquor <br />compliance check once previously, but passed all other liquor compliance checks. <br />Outback sponsors liquor compliance training for all your se�-vers. You have a writtez� <br />training program. You did not submit your written training program to the Police Chief <br />for approval because you misunderstood the Police Department's letter to that effect. <br />However, you have a written training program that you have submitted to the Roseville <br />Police Department since the notice of violation was issued. The Outbacic server who <br />provided liquor to an underage person was trained in the liquor laws of the State of <br />Minnesota. She has worked at the Outback since you opened at your present location four <br />years ago. She, personally, has passed previous liquor compliance checks. If slae were to <br />testify, she would testify that sk�e has been trained in the liquor laws for Minnesota; she <br />understands those laws; she made an error in judgment on this particular occasion; she <br />has lost her job at the Outback as a result of this violation. <br />1 have spoken w�th you over the phone to give you an opportunity to share all your <br />comments and concei�is about the notice of violation. My decision below is based on <br />your info�-�nation, paraphrased above, and my file review. Here are my concerns, <br />comments. and decision. <br />In 2000, the Roseville City Council considered amendments to the City's Liquor Code. <br />The Council voted to approve certain amendments. Among other things, the amendments <br />affected the penalties for liquor violations. If a liquor Iicei�see violated the liquor laws by <br />serving an underage person, two penalties were established. I£the liquor licensee had an <br />approved liquor training policy on file with the Chief of Police a warning letter was <br />imposed for a first violation of serving underage persons. If a licensee did not have an <br />