Laserfiche WebLink
Date: 05108106 <br />Item: 7 <br />RATW�K, ROSZAK & MALONEY, �..�. Consider Amendments to Alcohol <br />Anorneys at Law Complia�lCe OrdinanCe <br />Paul C. Ratwik <br />John M. Roszak <br />Patricia A. Maloney* <br />Terrence J. Foy* <br />Stephen G. Andersen** <br />Scott T. Anderson <br />Kevin J. Rupp <br />Jay T. Squires*�' <br />Ann R. Goering <br />Nancy E. Blumstein* <br />Joseph J. Lange! <br />Michael J. Waldspurger* <br />Margaret A. Skelton <br />Amy E. Mace <br />300 U,S. T'rust Building <br />730 Second Avenue South <br />Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 <br />(612)339-0060 <br />Fax(612) 339-0038 <br />55�'�'r w.l8r�'I ��<l'rr.t���i. <br />Apri125, 2006 <br />Mr. Neal Beets <br />City Manager <br />City of Roseville <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville, MN 55113-1899 <br />RE: Liquor Code O�dinance <br />Our File No. 4002(1)-0219 <br />Dear Mr. Beets: <br />isaac Ka�tinan <br />Eric J. Quiring <br />Kimberley K. Sohieck <br />Sonya J. Guggemos <br />Dawit Haile <br />Nicole L. Tuescher <br />JenniferJ. Kruckeberg <br />" A�sa admitted in Wisconsin <br />** Civil Trial Specialist <br />Certified by the Minnesota <br />State Bar Association <br />t Real Property Law Specialist <br />Certified by the Minnesota <br />State Bar Association <br />At the Council meeting on April 10,2006, the Council passed a motion authorizing the <br />City Attorney's office to amend City Ordinance, Chapter 302, to incorporate the five-point <br />process as outlined in our legal opinion of April 5,2006, and to provide consistency with <br />Minnesota Statute, Chapter 340,A. <br />We have completed that work and I enclose for your review a proposed ordinance <br />revision. It shows the old provisions that are removed with strikeouts, and the new provisions <br />as underlined. All of the changes are in Code Section 302.15. The majority of the changes are <br />in Subpart C, with a few in Subpart B. <br />I would note for you and the Council that we dropped references to the word "appeal." <br />While that is what we stated in our letter of April 5, when one looks at Minn. Stat. � 3�QA.415, <br />it isn't really an appeal that we are talking about. We are really talking about a hearing prior to <br />any suspension or revocation taking effect. Technically that is not an appeaL Any appeal <br />would be to court after any proceedings which resulted in the imposition o fa penalty. We <br />therefore thought it more appropriate to merely refer to a hearing and to the fact that the <br />