CC_Minutes_2011_0516 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 16,2011 Page 13 liquor and providing it to minors; and even though a non-drinker herself, recog- nized the significant problems of alcohol in the community, state and country in general. Councilmember McGehee opined that those problems were not the issue currently before the Council, while being an emotional issue, but that the issue was one of equity for business owners. Councilmember McGehee opined that the majority of the problems to-date occurred to be from on-sale, not off-sale estab- lishments; and further opined that the proposed amendments were reflected ac- cordingly in what was actually needed. Councilmember Pust directed several questions to Police Chief Mathwig, clarify- ing consequences to business owners and minors in sales/purchase of alcohol; mandatory versus voluntary training and how that training was documented and tracked by the Police Department to ensure compliance and based on best practic- es; with the Department only researching training records upon a business's fail- ure to comply with the department not checking records on site unless a violation occurs; and additional fees for on-sale licenses versus off-sale licenses based on typical public safety calls at those establishments. Councilmember Pust noted the license costs for on-sale versus off-sale at approx- imately twenty-three (23) times more to take those additional service require- ments into account, establishing an equity in itself, even though they're not the same, and the City's past decision that they were not going to be treated the same, based on potential harm and law enforcement needs for on-sale businesses. Councilmember Pust apologized for her language related to "drunk" rather than "intoxicated" persons on her RIF posting, but referred to State Statute use of that specific language. Councilmember Pust provided her perspective on the impacts of an intoxicated person based on their frequenting an on-sale versus an off-sale establishment, as well as the impacts to the general public and the number of people potentially harmed from their actions. Councilmember Pust defended the recommendations she and Councilmember Roe had made when they served on the Task Force related to this ordinance; and the intent not being to treat off-sales more harshly by keeping penalties the same. Councilmember Pust reiterated that the penalty structure in the current ordinance was the same as the previous ordin- ance enacted in 2000, with the same amount of fine and days of suspension. Councilmember Pust acknowledged that in owning a liquor store, alcohol sales were the only source of income for that business, and if operations were sus- pended, it would have a larger economic impact on them. Councilmember Pust, however, noted that it wasn't the City's liquor ordinance that treated them diffe- rently, simply the business they were in. Councilmember Pust challenged the comments made that government was always against off-sale liquor store owners; noting if that were the case, the City wouldn't have limited how many could oper- ate in Roseville, and would let the free market drive that number. Councilmemb- er Pust opined that the City had determined that it had a reason to regulate how much alcohol was sold in the community; and opined that this had provided a sta- ble group of good citizens running those off-sale businesses. If a more broad-