CC_Minutes_2010_0125 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, January 25, 2010 Page 13 two-tiered, with one tier with up five levels of violation and respective penalty suggested in the revisions, with the first violation not subject to only a letter of warning, but immediate penalty. From her perspective, Councilmember Pust elaborated on Councilmember Roe's summary, and whether afive-year revocation for a violation during suspension, as proscribed by State Statute, was too drastic. Councilmember Pust noted that the City's current ordinance was enacted ten years ago, and was probably thought adequate; however, she opined that community values and recognition of the harms caused by alcohol abuse by minors had evolved, with the majority of the Council supporting treating the issue as seriously as possible within the confines of City ordinance and within the parameters of State law which allows two op- tions: license suspension of only up to60 days and no more, or license revocation, and fines capped at $2,000. Councilmember Pust, in consultation with Councilmember Roe and law enforce- ment officers, reviewed the original rationale for the two-tiered training for in- venting behavior; and current recognition that, as a responsible business owner in Roseville, training should no longer be optional and required by most insurance carriers. Councilmember Pust advised, in meeting with Acting Chief Rick Math- wig and staff, they concurred that it would make their job easier, not harder; and their request for added language on Page 1 related to all licensees maintaining documentation evidencing training provisions and made available upon reason- able request by the City pursuant to the inspections provisions of the ordinance. Councilmember Pust noted that the increased severity of penalties recognized so- ciety's view that this is part of the job of local government to enact public policy reflecting their views. Councilmember Pust reviewed the proposed penalties on Page 3 of Attachment A, with the first three related to individual sales and penalties, and the remaining based on the policy of management versus the individual. Councilmember Pust advised that the chart form was incorporated based on and typical of ordinances of other communities, the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) model ordinance, and State Statute. Councilmember Pust advised that the City Attorney had re- viewed the document and she further clarified that the revised language did not take away the City Council's ability to deviate, with that language remaining in- tact. Discussion among Councilmembers included Fourth Amendment Rights allowing City inspectors access to the premises, with ordinance language (Subparagraph B on Page 1) their waiver of that right as a condition of the City granting a license to them. Further discussion included the comparable cities (i.e., St. Paul, Coon Rapids, Burnsville, Bloomington, and Apple Valley).