The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.a. Staff Review of Off-Sale Liquor Ordinance LimitsAGENDA ITEM: Regulation of Off -Sale Liquor Licensees Limitation on Number of Licenses AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Develop n Director Gary Kalstabakken, Chief of P ice GENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Letters Steiner Developme d Explore Investments LLC, Minutes and Executive Summary June 11, 2003 and March 9, 2005, Updated Survey— 9/05 APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion ROSEMOUN 1 CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: September 20, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The number of off -sale, i.e. carryout, liquor licenses is limited by City Code as one (1) license for every 6500 residents and uses the Metropolitan Council's population estimate for this purpose. The most recent population estimate of the Met Council shows Rosemount's population as of April 1, 2004 as 17,740. This correlates to there being two (2) off -sale liquor hcenses available Shenanigan's Wine and Spirts and Rosemount Liquor Mart hold the two available licenses. In recent months, there have been at least seven (7) inquiries from persons /businesses about the availability of an off -sale hquor hcense. This has included proposals by Steiner Development to locate an MGM Wine Spirits at the ALDIs development at Co. 42 and Hwy. 3 and another proposal for an off sale hquor store at the former Loch Pharmacy building at 145` St. and Hwy 3. A letter has been received from Steiner Development requesting that Council amend the ordinance to allow additional off -sale hquor stores. A letter has also been received from Explore Investments, LLC regarding a request to acknowledge that the population of Rosemount has exceeded the level needed for another liquor store and to allow a license for the store at the Loch Pharmacy site. Council did address this specific topic at a Work Session on June 11, 2003. The discussion at that meeting was a result of letters received from the two off -sale hcense holders requesting to have the population threshold raised. An inquiry had also been received from one real estate broker working on behalf of a party interested in having the City Code changed to allow an additional off -sale hcense. The Council direction at the June 2003 meeting was to review that matter in 2004 after the population estunate had been updated. Council did discuss this topic at the August 11, 2004 Work Session as part of a larger discussion of hquor regulations. The prunary focus of the discussion was on the number of on -sale licenses to be issued and the limiting of the number of Class A (bar) hcenses. Direction on the number of off -sale licenses was to leave the existing ordinance language intact. Finally, Council did discuss this issue at the March 9, 2005 Work Session. However, that discussion was again primarily focused on the change of permitting additional on -sale licenses in accordance with Minnesota State Statute, while continuing to limit the number of Class A (bar) licenses allowed. Council did bnefly discuss the limits set m City Code but did not direct staff at that rove to pursue changing the Code, while also realizing that the Met Council population estimate was due out later m the spnng and may generate additional interest in this issue. Council is being asked to diccuss this topic in more detail to give staff direction. As part of the discussion the Council may want to consider the following. The Council voted in March of this year to remove the limits of on -sale liquor licenses issued by the City to follow the limits contained in Minnesota state statute Because the statute exempts restaurants, hotels, bowling centers and other types of businesses, there is essentially no limit on at least certain types of on -sale liquor licenses. Class A licenses were still limited to two. Written requests have been received from two groups seeking to open an off -sale liquor store in specific sites within Rosemount. Additional verbal mqumes have been made which indicates a clear interest and desire by the business community to expand the number of liquor stores m the city. Are additional off -sale liquor stores a type of economic development that the city wishes to encourage or at least allow? As a policy issue, should the number of liquor stores be driven by the market or hmited by government action through the City Code? Based on the number of calls for service at the existing off -sale stores, public safety does not appear to be a concern at the stores. In the last two years, there have been about seven total calls to each business. The calls include theft and fraud complaints, which are similar to any other type of retail business. If Council chooses to continue to limit the number of licenses by population, what criteria should be developed to determine which business is selected to receive the next off -sale license? Staff is requesting direction from Council. 2 Steiner Development, Inc. 3610 County Road 101 Wayzata, MN 55391 (952)473 -5650 Fax (952)473-7058 August 26, 2005 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rosemount, Minnesota As the developer and owner of Rosemount Crossing, we are interested in assuring the success of our development. As a growing community, Rosemount has an interest in delivering successful developments. Steiner Development has reached a letter of intent agreement to lease space to MGM Wine Spirits. The lease is only valid if MGM can obtain an off -sale license within a reasonable length of time. We are writing to request that the Mayor and City Council discuss the issue of amending the City's ordinance to allow a third off -sale liquor license at the September 14 2005 work session. If the city is willing to address the issue, it is important to begin as soon as possible, as the process will take several meetings and may extend into 2006. Attached please find a summary sheet of the cities in the metro area with non municipal liquor stores. The summary shows the various licensing issues and averages It is Steiner Development's contention that Rosemount would be well within the norm if a third license is allowed. Respectfullyjubmitted, odd A. Johnson Vice President Development Steiner Development, Inc. Dear Linda: Steiner Development, Inc. 3610 County Road 101 Wayzata, MN 55391 (952)473 -5650 Fax (952)473-7058 August 26, 2005 Ms.Linda Jentink City Clerk City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 RE: REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM Attached please find a request to the Mayor and City Council to place the issue of amending the city ordinance regarding off -sale liquor licenses on the September 14 work session agenda. Please forward to the appropriate parties. We hope that the issue can be heard sooner than later as the process will be long and we are holding back a large block of space in our main retail building at Rosemount Crossing. Best regards, d A. Johnson Vice President Development 952 -475 -5113 Cc w /attachments David Kordonowy, President CEO, Steiner Development, Inc. Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator, City of Rosemount REC'D AUG 31 2005 pkwar5a81311 —j Explore Investments LLC 21243 Independence Ave. Lakeville, MN 55044 July 26, 2005 Mr. Bill Droste Council Members Rosemount Mayor City Council 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Mayor Droste and Council Members: We are writing this letter to express our intent to invest in an off -sale liquor store located in the downtown district at the Intersection of 145 and Hwy 3. The site chosen is the vacant space located next to Big Daddy's Diner at 2975 145 Street West. We understand the current ordinance states "one off -sale liquor license may be issued for each six thousand five hundred (6,500) of city population attained, as determined by the most recent metropolitan council population estimates We do not dispute the city's intent to limit the number of off -sale liquor licenses and agree with such decisions, however we would like an amendment or variance to the ordinance citing that the current population of Rosemount is over the 19,500 needed for a 3 off sale liquor license to be granted. The following is a list of statements or recently released information supporting a Rosemount population estimate over 19,500. During the 3/8/05 State of the City Address given by Mayor Bill Droste it is documented that the city's estimate for Rosemount's population "passed the 20 thousand mark 1 month ago. Now we're bumping up against limits we weren't supposed to reach for another 10 years (Information obtained from the State of the City Address 2005 prepared remarks) The Metropolitan Council recently released the estimated population for the city of Rosemount to be near 17,800 residents as of April 1, 2004. This figure is 16 months behind. With over 500 building permits being issued annually, and with an average of 3.08 residents per household, REC! JUL, 2 7 2005 (2000 Census Statistics for City of Rosemount), the current population exceeds the 19,500 needed to issue a new off -sale liquor license. Rosemount is recognized as having a population in excess of 20,000 people by organizations outside the city, and those businesses are acting accordingly. HealthEast Transportation an ambulance service serving Dakota county cities) has stationed an ambulance in Rosemount as a result of the population reaching 20,000. Again this demonstrates the population is far above what is needed to issue another off -sale liquor license. The Rosemount population clock on the city's website as of 7/25/05 is 20,417. Citing the references stated above, at this time we are requesting the City Council pass an amendment or variance allowing the next off -sale liquor license to be granted to us. We at Explore Investments LLC wish to be the recipients of the new off -sale liquor license pending the successful completion of the off -sale liquor application and background. We feel an off -sale liquor store located in the downtown redevelopment area will benefit the residents and downtown business area on a variety of levels. We look forward to hearing back from in regards to this request. Sincerely, Chris Holste Brian Rezny Explore Investments LLC holstc @yahoo.com 651- 983 -9514 AGENDA ITEM: Liquor Ordinance C l/fGKSSibs✓ AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Gary D. Kalstabakken, Chief of Police GENDA NO: 2 n ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance c/ APPROVED BY: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING DATE: June 11, 2003 There are three issues related to the ordinance regulating liquor licenses to be discussed to receive Council direction. Off— Sale Liquor License The current ordinance limits the number of off-sale liquor licenses based on the population estimate of the Metropolitan Council One license is authorized for every 6500 residents. The Met Council estimate of Rosemount's population as of April 2001 is 15,270. Staff is attempting to get a more current estimate Based on the estimate, two (2) off -sale license are permitted and there are two licenses currently held for off-sale. Council received a letter from the existing off-sale license holders requesting that the population limit be raised. A realtor representing a potential off-sale license applicant has made an inquiry of city staff on how to have the ordinance changed to eliminate the license limit There was also discussion early in the legislative session this year to prevent cities from Limiting the number of off -sale licenses. License Violation Penalties An administrative fine, license suspension and license revocation are all actions that may be taken by Council when a license violation occurs The existing ordinance does not contain any type of predetermined penalty system to guide Council Penalties are determined on a case -by -case basis Other cities have adopted a matrix showing the presumed penalty for any violations that occur within a specified time period. This matrix system informs license holders of what to expect for violations and establishes a set system for Council to follow, this may prevent accusations of favoritism when any penalties are imposed Council is asked to discuss adopting a "penalty matrix Attached are the letters previously sent to Council from the current license holders Staff compiled the attached spreadsheet comparing data from surrounding communities and other similar metro area cities. Extended Hours Legislation The 2003 legislature passed a bill authorizing municipalities to extend bar hours to 2:00 a.m A survey of the licensed bars indicates that the majority are interested in having Rosemount's ordinance amended to allow for the later hours However, the owners /managers also indicated that they probably will not stay open every night until 2 00 a.m even if the ordinance is amended The most likely dates that hours would be extended are Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion COUNCIL ACTION: CITY/POPULATION Apple Valley 952- 953 -2500 46,600 OFF -SALE FEE Municipal stores only LIMIT N/A CURRENT 2 NOTES Burnsville 952 -895 4400 $200.00 10 8 Free standing buildings 1 mile minimum 60,434 Chaska 952- 448 -2851 18,380 $150.00 None 6 Two with on -sale business Cottage Grove 651- 458 -2800 30,753 $200.00 One per 7,500 population 4 Eagan 651- 675 -5000 64,300 $200.00 None 13 Farmington 651- 463 -7111 13,279 Municipal stores only N/A 2 Hastings 651- 437 -4127 18.503 $200.00 None 11 Inver Grove Heights 651- 450 -2500 30,150 $200.00 None 5 Lakeville 952 -985 -4400 44,751 Municipal stores only N/A 3 Lino Lakes 651- 982 -2400 17,380 $100.00 None 5 Northfield 507- 645 -8832 17,509 Municipal stores only N/A 1 North St. Paul 651 4450 $200.00 4 3 -770 11,923 Oakdale 651 -739 -5086 26,906 $200.00 None 10 South St. Paul 651 -554 -3200 20,174 $200.00 12 2 West St. Paul 651 -552 -4100 19,624 $200.00 7 7 L riit: ,r une v'+, zuvi TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Gary Kalstabakken, Chief of Police Linda Jentink, City Clerk Off-Sale Liquor License Survey 200X 3- SA C City Population Est.2001 Met Council Limit Current Stores Per Population Burnsville 60,434 10 8 7554 Eagan 64,300 None 13 4946 Hastings 18,500 None 11 1682 Inver Grove Heights 30,150 None 5 6030 South St Paul 20,284 12 2 10142 Cottage Grove 30,753 Pop. 7500 4 7688 Lino Lakes 17,380 None 5 3476 North St. Paul 12,780 None 3 4260 Oakdale 26,906 None 10 2691 Chaska 18,380 None 6 3063 West St Paul 19,600 7 7 2800 Average 4939 Rosemount 15,270 6500 2 7635 Munical Liquor Stores Apple Valley 46,600 Muni 2 23300 Farmington 13,279 Muni 2 6640 Lakeville 44,751 Muni 3 14917 Northfield 16,051 Muni 1 16051 Average 15227 Rosernnunt 1 inI Io Mr, To: Rosemount City Council: Mayor: William (Bill) H. Droste Council Members. Mary Riley, Mark DeBettingnies, Kim Shoe Corrigan, Kevin Strayton Re: Rosemount Off -Sale Liquor Ordinance Date: April 7, 2003 Dear Mayor and Council Members. My name is Rishi P Mohabir, a resident of Rosemount and Chief Executive Officer of Rosemount Liquors, Incorporated. I am writing with respect to modification of the current off -sale liquor ordinance, and perhaps assist in providing a rationale for preamble findings in the liquor ordinance revision and amendment to the issuance of liquor licenses based upon population as determined by the most recent Metropolitan Council population estmiates. BACKGROUND 15070 Chippendale Ave. P.O. Box 14 Rosemount, MN 55068 R reFE M5D MAY 2 2 2D1.13 431 r tir huSEM)I.lNT Phone 651 423 -9065 Fax 651- 423 -1003 In the mid 1990's I considered opening an off -sale liquor store in Rosemount. 1 contacted city administration and was advised that there could only be two off -sale licenses, with a distance limitation of their not being within one mile of one another as a requirement. City administration informed me that an ordinance change to allow another liquor store was unlikely Accordingly, I negotiated with McFarland, the owner of Mac's Bottle Shop for the purchase of his licensed business. I paid a premium pnce for the business believing for the foreseeable future, Rosemount would allow two off -sale liquor establishments. Thus, I had investment- backed expectation in investing in a business in Rosemount based upon the current ordinance. However, since 1999 off -sale liquor ordinances have changed several times, costing Rosemount Liquors, Inc. thousands of dollars. One of those ordinance changes was the issuance of license based upon population The guidelines and standards set were that off -sale intoxicating liquor licenses may be issued dependent upon the population of the City of Rosemount where an off -sale liquor license may be issued for each 6,500 of city population attained, as determined by the more recent Metropolitan Council population count (estimates) for said city. The population numbers were not based upon any objective criteria or Your one -stop location for all your Wine, Liquor, and Beer needs. 1 rationale, but cue that was arrived at arbitrarily. There was no open discussion or input from affected parties for the rationale at arriving at the current population numbers per off -sale liquor license. FINDINGS OF FACT A survey of the surrounding communities conceming off -sale retail liquor restrictions was indeed instructive. I have surveyed and researched the communities surrounding the city of Rosemount because it clearly reflects the same trade area with somewhat identical demographics. Thus, the comparison is relevant, fair and equitable. The following represents population data per off -sale liquor licenses: 1 )City Name Population (Approx.) No. of Licenses Avg. Pop. /Store le Val 42,000 2 21,000 Burnsville 60,500 8 7,500 arminTton 16,200 2 8,100 60,500 3 15,333 TOTAL 164,700 15 10,980 The above statistics showed that the average population per off -sale liquor licenses is 11,000 (approximately). Rosemount ordinance is 6,500 attained population per liquor license, a number far less than the average by 4,500 population estimate. Bumsville's ordinance does an admirable job in balancing the occasional proliferation of liquor stores and the investment- backed expectations of current liquor store owners. Among Bumsville's notable restrictions, liquor stores must be one mile apart, and be located in a free standing building. The owners are, in essence, required to make a substancial investment in the business, and in return, the distance limitation pro-vides for equitable competition within a reasonable trade area. In short, the ordinance fosters successful and presentable businesses in that community. Although Farmington, Apple Valley, and Lakeville are municipal liquor cities, their desire to have well run and profitable businesses serving their community have resulted in liquor store per population figures of one liquor store per eight thousand, twenty -one thousand, and fifteen thousand of population respectfully. As in the case of Farmington, one of the two stores is very small and serves as a convenient stop rather than a profitable store. This indicates that those cities realized, by their cost/benefit analysis, that it takes a large population to support a reasonably successful retail liquor store in their communities, especially as the drinking population is continually decreasing. 2 The liquor industry differs from most other commercial activities by virtue of the numerous regulations and constraints imposed upon them. Although a free market approach is seductive, the liquor industry is not. It is regulated at all levels of government, from the Federal government level to the local government level. 'Unlike most commercial activities which cities may regulate through land use zoning ordinances, Minnesota law through legislative enactment, rule making regulations, and court decisions has long upheld the requests of cities and local governing jurisdictions to regulate the sale of liquor, a controllable substance under Minnesota law. The liquor industry is not a free enterprise sector, and as such severe constraints are placed upon liquor businesses by these regulations. These regulations impact all aspects of the business, including but not limited to the purchase, sale, distribution, payment, and day -to -day operations of liquor establishments. These regulations reduce flexibility and make it much more difficult for liquor retailers to compete amongst themselves in the same manner as other commercial activities compete amongst themselves in a free market system. Rosemount has limited commercial retail space and efforts should be directed to «Y;' e business diversity, rather than duplicating businesses. The city of Rosemount should expend efforts to carefully plan for balanced business activities. This will retain disposable incomes and increase our tax base for the City of Rosemount. Although population growth is the best measure used to make determination on The issuance of liquor licenses, the industry research shows that the drinking population is drminichtng annually. This is due to many factors and the most predominant is that of restrictive regulation, new laws and safety factors. The current population definitions in the city of Rosemount's ordinance and its demographics cannot support more than two off sale liquor establishments today or the foreseeable future. The current ordinance will result in a possible issuance of another off -sale liquor license very soon. givemthe current population growth of the city of Rosemount. if this license is issued to a "big box" that engages in unfair pricing, it is possible that none of the current off -sale liquor establishments will be operational. Thus, we will end up with the same practices that have plagued the city of Rosemount of replacing one business with another without any possible advantage to the community. EFFECT /IMPACT The current population definitions in the ordinance need to be re- examined in light of the above facts Failure to re- examine and revise the current population definitions and provide equity will have the following impact: Major financial loss and loss of tax revenue to the city can occur. Failure to "level the playing field" can be extremely detrimental to the investment- backed expectation of' our current liquor store owners without any benefit to our community. 3 The city of Rosemount, with its limited commercial space, will not be able tom, attract a diverse business base. Business duplication is detrimental to the business community and to the residents themselves Business diversity retains shoppers in the commuruty and provides for a stronger tax base for the city. The city of Rosemount can hardly support two reasonably small liquor stores. Failure to revise the said ordinance will result in marginal Liquor store business with reduced profitability, thereby hindering the ability of retail liquor stores to employ qualified individuals of suitable age and matunty to ensure compliance with liquor sales laws and regulations. In view of the fact that liquor is a controlled substance, the issuance of any additional off -sale licenses will incur increased costs of the enforcement of its numerous laws, ordinances, and regulations at all levels of government. This, however, is not appropriate or responsible under the current budget cuts that all levels of government are experiencing. lik_LQCOMMENDATIONS The above compelling facts and the impact of the current ordinance relating to the population standard on the issuance of off -sale liquor licenses support the review, deliberations, and revisions of the liquor ordinances. I am recommending that the population standards be revised from 6,500 to 11,000 attained per retail liquor store. This will prgvide for a fair and equitable playing field consistent with our surrounding cities. The revision will foster effective competition, convenience, and accessibility to our city's residents, while protecting the investment- backed expectations of our current liquor store retail businesses. The revisions will send a strong message to current and prospective small business owners that the City of Rosemount values its business community. Thank .ydu for your time and consideration in addressing this matter. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss and answer any questions on this matter. I hope we can adopt the recommended revisions as early as possible. Again, thank you. Very truly yours, its Rishi Paul vlohi'_bar cc: Jamie Verbrugge 4 April 11, 2003 To: The Rosemont City Council Mayor: Bill Droste Council Members Mark DeBettignes, Kim Shoe Corrigan, Mary Riley, Kevin Strayton Dear Mayor and Council Members: My name is Sarah Dostal and I am representing my family's business, Shenanigan's Fine Wine Spirits I am writing this letter to ask for your consideration in a matter concerning the issu- ance of off -sale liquor licenses in the city of Rosemount. I am asking for a revision of Rosemount's current policy regarding the issuance of liquor licenses based upon population. City Population Licenses erage Popul. tion ep r Store Apple Valley 42,000 2 21,000 Burnsville 60,500 8 7,500 Farmington 16,200 2 8,100 Lakeville 60,500 3 15,333 Total 164,700 15 10,980 Our family has been in operating our business in Rosemount for the past 17 years. My sisters and 1 manage Shenanigan's along with our semi retired parents, Fritz and Pat Dolejs. Al- though my parents are out of town during the winter months, they have kept a long distance hand in the day -to -day operations of the business A few years ago, we made the decision to invest in property on County Road 42 in order to build a new store triple the size of our original location. A great deal of research and deliberation went into our decision as this was a major financial commitment for our family. We have not regretted our decision as we been able to expand our product lines in all categories due to the expanded size of our store. We are pleased with the look and feel of our building and believe the extensive selections of wine and spirits we offer is a significant enhancement to the city of Rosemount Our intention is to con- tinue to use this building design style as we continue to develop the rest of the lot. In a discussion with Rosemount's other off -sale liquor store owner, Richi Mohibar, it has come to my attention that the communities around Rosemount have also used population data to determine off -sale liquor licenses. As follows: The figures above indicate that the average population in our neighboring communities per off sale liquor licenses is approximately 11,000. Currently Rosemount's ordinance stands at 6,500 population per liquor license. This number is less than the average by 4,500. The 11,000 population per store figure makes good business sense considering that a large population is required to support a successful liquor store This, coupled with the fact that the dunking popu- lation is continually decreasing and that liquor retailers are limited by law to selling only liquor products, grves credence to the fact that it is in any community's best interest to place popula- tion limits nn linnnr stnrR nneninns All liquor retailers have numerous constraints imposed upon them: Liquor is regulated at all levels of government from Federal to Local The liquor industry is unique in that it operates under highly restrictive laws and regulations that do not impact the free enterprise sector. These regulations, important as they are, make it highly difficult for liquor retailers to offer a unique value proposition to distinguish theft business. Research proves that vibrant, economically successful cities provide theft residents with a diverse offering of businesses. We believe that the addition of another off-sale liquor store establishment will negatively impact Rosemount rather than enhance the city's current offer- ings. Research also indicates that the current population base of Rosemount would be unable to support three liquor stores within such close physical proximity In this scenario, one of the three businesses would most certainly fail. Clearly, this outcome does not benefit the city nor any of the investors associated with the businesses. We recommend that the current ordinance relating to the population standard on the issuance of off -sale licenses be revised from 6,500 to 11.000 per liquor store establishment. This stan- dard will allow our city's residents to continue to benefit from fair competition and convenience offered by the existing liquor stores, while also protecting investor's interests The decision by the City Council to revise this ordinance will clearly demonstrate that the City of Rosemount values its business community and is interested in seeing the continued success of its existing businesses. We appreciate your thoughtful and serious consideration to this matter. We would be happy to discuss and answer any questions. We are hopeful that the recommended revisions can be adopted as soon as possible. Sincerely, Sarah Dostal cc: Jamie Verbrugge ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JUNE 11, 2003 pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Committee of the Whole Work Session was held on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 at 6:30 p.m in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Mayor Droste called the meeting to order with Council Members Riley, Shoe Corrigan, and Strayton were present. Also in attendance were City Administrator Verbrugge, Code Enforcement Officer O'Brien, City Planner Pearson, City Engineer Brotzler, Police Chief Kalstabakken, and Engmeenng Consultant Weiss from WSB Engineering. Hawkins Pond Homeowners Association Dan Huberty spoke for the Hawkins Homeowner Association. Engineer Brett Weis recalled that the pond had a sand bottom and the Association requested a clay liner so it would hold water. Two years ago, stomps caused flood conditions and water had to be pumped out to cut property damage. The whole area was looked at after that, a pump station was installed, and natural plantings were started around the pond. The plantings, which have not flourished, are under warrantee Staff will contact them to reseed. No sod will be installed. Cable Franchise Fiber to the Home City Administrator Verbrugee reported that Fiber to the Home (FTTH) has agreed to wire the City and provide access channels. FTTH has asked the City what type of programming will be included. Verbrugge introduced Mark Moore, the City's Cable Coordinator, who gave an informational presentation. Moore recommended using the same programming as now shown on public channels 16, 22, 12, and 10 By sharing this programming, less additional costs will be incurred. If, at a future date, custom programming is desired, it could be added. FTTH is not involved with broadcasting and will take an estimated eight years to build out the fiber optics system throughout the City. Moore was directed to contact Charter Cable about shared programming. Liquor Ordinance City Administrator Verbrugge stated that off -sale liquor licenses can be limited by city government and the policy now in place is based on one off -sale license per 6,500 population. Police Chief Kalstabakken noted that the population is based on Metropolitan Council's estimate that now stands at 15,270. Staff has received requests from the two establishments now licensed, Rosemount Liquors Inc. and Shenanigan's Fine Wine Spirits, to increase the population limitation. They noted that the drinking population is shrinking and if more off -sale liquor stores were allowed the risk of lost revenue would damage their businesses. In addition, they noted that because liquor is restricted by State laws it is not a free market situation. Some on Council were concerned about regulating pnvate business but they also did not see a great need for additional liquor stores. A survey compared population with the number of liquor stores in several metro cities. The average population per store was about 5,000. The City Council consensus was to leave the established ordinance intact and review this again next year after Metropolitan Council updates Rosemount's population. Police Chief Kalstabakken noted that he spoke to all on -sale liquor license holders about the new 2 a.m. closing time enacted by the legislature. Most owners are not convinced that this will be a moneymaker for them and that most will only have extended hours Wednesday through Saturday nights for 2:00 a.m. closings. None of the liquor establislunents have applied for the 2 a m. closure at this time Council viewed this as a business option to be determined by each 1 I r: AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance Amendment City Code 3 -1 -2, Paragraphs B and L; Relating to Liquor Regulations AGENDA SECTION: �1SCu55/04i PREPARED BY: Gary Kalstabakken, Chief of Police Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director AGE 02 E ATTACHMENTS: Exec. Summary February 15, 2005 and Proposed Amendments Meeting Minutes. CC January 19, 1999, CCWS February 11, 1999, CC March 2, 1999, Exec. Summary February 1 1999, Exec Summary March 2, 1999 Memorandum January 22, 1999 APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff on restrictions on location of Class A liquor license holders and the number of liquor licenses permitted for on -sale licensees in the City ACTION: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Work Session Date. March 9, 2005 BACKGROUND The proposed ordinance amendments were brought before the Council at the February 15, 2005 meeting. This was the first reading and after discussion Council asked to have this issue further discussed at a Work Session. SUMMARY Rosemount's current ordinance restricts the number of on -sale liquor licenses to six (6). This is more restrictive than Minnesota state statute, which allows twelve (12) and excludes hotels, restaurants, theaters, bowling centers and veteran's clubs. The amendment would bring Rosemount's City Code in line with state statute. The current ordinance includes a provision which restricts the bar type on -sale liquor licensees from being located on or within 300' of County Road 42. At the February 15, 2005 meeting, Council asked for more background information regarding this restriction along County Road 42. The attached minutes are from the Council Meetings and Work Sessions in 1999 when this section of the code was added Unfortunately, the minutes do not include much information on the rationale for restricting the location of Class A license holders It appears that the direction of the Council at that time was simply to prohibit bars on County Road 42. AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance Amendment City Code 3 -1 -2, Paragraphs B and L; Relating to Liquor Regulations AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY ry Kalstabakken, Chief of Police im Lindquist, Community Development Director AGENDA.NO. i i p ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance, August 11, 2004 Work Session Minutes APPROVED BY :r RECOMMENDED ACTION: First reading of ordinance. No action required at this reading only discussion. ACTION: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date: February 15, 2005 BACKGROUND The proposed amendments were discussed with the Council at the August 11, 2004 Work Session. These changes are proposed based upon changes that have occurred in Minnesota State Statutes regulating liquor licenses and based upon the anticipated and desired growth in the City's restaurant variety. SUMMARY City Code 3 -1 currently is more restnctive than state statute in the number of liquor licenses permitted The total number presently allowed is six (6) in city code. State law allows twelve (12) on -sale liquor licenses, while also providing exclusions for restaurants, hotels, theaters, clubs or congressionally recognized veteran's organizations, establishments licensed for wine sales and bowling centers. The provision excluding the listed types of establishments was passed by the legislature in 2003. The City -has five (5) on -sale licenses issued at this time, leaving only one (1) license remaining for issuance under the current language of City Code. This could become problematic if additional restaurants express an interest in locating within Rosemount because many restaurants have•liquor licenses to allow serving of alcoholic beverages to their customers The change in state law excluding restaurants and the other establishments listed seems to acknowledge that alcohol is not the primary product being offered by the establishments and, therefore, the exclusion from license limits. The current City Code does have two (2) categories of on -sale licenses and staff is recommending that this provision be retained. The two (2) types of licenses are based upon the amount of revenue generated by the sale of alcoholic beverage compared to food and other nonalcoholic beverages. Class A licenses are issued to those establishments that derive less than fifty- percent of their sales from non alcoholic products, in other words, establishments that are more of a bar or night club in nature than an eating establishment H discussions with Council at the Work Session, consensus seemed to be that the City Code should limit the number of Class A licenses, thereby, controlling the number of bars operating within the city At this time, Class A licenses are held by Shenanigan's Pub and Celt's Irish Pub and Grill. Shenanigan's has held a Class A license since the two- license system was adopted, while Celt's had held a Class B license until they expanded their game /recreation area in 2004 The proposed language limits the number of Class A licenses to two (2). Because Celt's and Shenanigan's already hold Class A licenses, if the proposed amendments are adopted, no additional Class A licenses would be available for issuing However, liquor licenses would be available for issuance under the Class B type The proposed language allows Class B licenses to be issued in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. The changes are proposed in an effort to continue to control licensed liquor establishments but puts a greater emphasis on controlling the establishments that are bar type establishments versus restaurants. City Attorney LeFevere has reviewed the proposed changes and has approved the proposed language. A letter outlining the proposed changes was also sent to each of the five (5) current on -sale liquor license holders. 2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ORDAINS THAT THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS• Section 1 City Code, Section 3 -1 -2, paragraph L is amended as follows: L. Apportionment Of Intoxicating Liquor Licenses: 1. CLL-- 258228v1 RS215 -6 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LIQUOR REGULATIONS, AMENDING ROSEMOUNT CODE, SECTION 3 -1 -2, PARAGRAPHS B AND L ecl Class 13 �u �uj vu -aaic wiu,ucauu nijuvi uLcl intnxirati Ug inr licenses will he is limits established in Minnesnta Statutes, Sertinn 340A 414, as amended y kJc 2. Two (2) Class A intoxicating liquor licenses may be issued within the city of Rosemount. 3. Off -sale intoxicating liquor licenses may be issued dependent on the population of the city of Rosemount. One off -sale license may be issued for each six thousand five hundred (6500) of city population attamed, as detemained by the most recent Metropolitan Council population estimates. Section 7 City Code, Section 3 -1 -2, paragraph B2 is amended as follows: 2. Class A licenses may be issued to hotels, restaurants and exclusive liquor stores and are unrestricted as to the percentage of revenues derived from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. Class A licenses may not be issued for any premises wl'ach.that is on a lot, piece or parcel of land whzchthat is adjacent to County Road 42 or for any premises wlrchthat is within three hundred feet (300') of the right of way of Country Road 42. g l ii c1 S a will Lc iaau d as c :vi a �1aJ� 3 license: Secti nn 3 This Ordinance shall be in effect following its passage and publication. T Inderlining indicates new material Luuug tluuugh indicates deleted material. ADOPTED this day of 2005, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Linda Tentink, City Clerk CLL- 258228v1 RS215 -6 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William Droste, Mayor B. On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses: On -sale licenses shall be issued only to hotels, restaurants and exclusive liquor stores and shall permit on -sale of liquor or wine. On -sale licenses shall be of two (2) classes. (Ord. XVI.40, 3 -2 -1999) 1. Class B licenses may be issued only to hotels and restaurants where fifty one percent (51%) or more of total revenues are derived from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises during hours when the sale of alcoholic beverages is allowed In the case of class B licenses issued to restaurants operated in conjunction with a bowling center, twenty five percent (25 or more of the total revenues must be denved from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. "Total revenues" is defined as all revenues from the sale of food, alcoholic beverages and nonalcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises during the hours when sale of alcoholic beverages is allowed. (Ord. XVI.46, 3 -2 -2001) 2. Class A licenses may be issued to hotels, restaurants and exclusive liquor stores and are unrestricted as to the percentage of revenues derived from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. Class A licenses may not be issued for any premises which is on a lot, piece or parcel of land which is adjacent to County Road 42 or for any premises which is within three hundred feet (300') of the right of way of County Road 42. All on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses will be issues as class A licenses unless application is made for a class B license. (Ord. XVI.40, 3 -2 -1999) AGENDA ITEM: Liquor License Regulations AGENDA SECTION: Discussion PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director, Gary Kalstabakken, Police Chief, Linda Jentink, City Clerk AGEND'•r? k ATTACHMENTS: Excerpt June 11, 2003 City Council Minutes, Staff Memo from June 11, 2003 APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Direction. ACTION: City Council Meeting Date August 11, 2004 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION ISSUE One of the Council goals for 2004 is to increase the diversity of restaurants in the community. Often restaurants need liquor licenses to operate. The City currently regulates the number of on -sale liquor licenses permitted. Due to the Council goals and changes in State law, staff felt a discussion about liquor licensing would be appropriate. BACKGROUND The current ordinance permits issuance of "on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses [that] shall be issued only to hotels, restaurants and exclusive liquor stores and shall permit on -sale of liquor or wine. There are two classes of liquor licenses: Class B: Class 8 may only be issued to hotels and restaurants where 51 or more of total revenues are derived from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. Restaurants in bowling centers are required to have 25% of the total revenues derived from the sale o f food and nonalcoholic beverages from consumption on the premises. Class A: Class A licenses may be issued to hotels, restaurants and exclusive liquor stores and are unrestricted as to the percentage of revenues derived from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. Class A licenses may not be issued for any property adjacent to County Road 42 or within 300' of the County Road 42 right -of -way. The ordinance also notes that all on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses will be issued as class A licenses unless an application is specifically received for class B license. The City ordinance restricts the number of on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses to six (6). State statute limits the number of liquor licenses for Class 3 cities (Rosemount) to 12. However, during the last legislative session the State made modifications to the liquor licensing standards It adopted an exclusion for certain businesses, meaning that "licenses may be issued to the following entities by a city, in addition to the number authorized by this section. 1. clubs or congressionally chartered veterans organizations; 2. restaurants, 3. establishments that are issued licenses to sell wine under section 340A.404 subdivision 5; 4. theaters that are issued licenses under section 340A.404; 5. hotels; and 6. bowling centers.° DISCUSSION On Sale Liquor Licenses. The impetus for this discussion centered on the Council's desire to attract different types of restaurants into the community. Presently, the City ordinance limits the amount of on -sale liquor licenses to 6. The four establishments that currently have liquor licenses are Shenanigans, Celts, McDivots, and AMF City Limits. With the anticipation that Applebee's would receive approval for a liquor license; there would only be an opportunity for one more restaurant establishment with liquor in the community. Staff initially was going to ask the Council to reconsider the limitation of 6 licenses to permit additional restaurant opportunities in the community. The question of liquor or no liquor would obviously have an impact on what food establishments would want to come to the City. The City Clerk noted that changes in state law exempt restaurants and bowling centers from the number of licenses permitted by the statute, meaning they are exempt from the total 12 licenses permitted by the State. Potentially all liquor licenses currently issued by the City would fall into the exemption category. The State statute defines restaurants as "an establishment, other than a hotel, under the control of a single proprietor or manager, where meals are regularly prepared on the premises and served at tables to the general public, and having a minimum seating capacity for guests as prescribed by the appropriate license issuing authority That.means there_may be additional liquor licenses available fornon- restaurant uses. The change in State law could address the economic development issue for Rosemount of having a limitation on restaurant liquor licenses, so long as the Council is comfortable applying this State change to the local ordinance. Staff wanted to ensure that the Council was aware of the changes in State law and that there was a formal policy discussion to change the interpretation of the City ordinance. It is staffs opinion that the City, as it has been in the past, can be more restrictive than the State, and therefore the changes at the State level do not automatically ensure additional liquor licenses will be issued for restaurants. This interpretation has been confirmed by the City Attorney. Therefore staff has several questions for the Council: 2 Would the Council like to adopt the exclusion permitted in State statute for restaurants, bowling centers, etc? This recognizes that the exclusion by the State would address the staff concem about attracting additional restaurants within the community and allowing them the opportunity to serve liquor. Without this change, or without increasing the number of licenses permitted by local ordinance, it will be difficult to attract many additional restaurants to the community. If the Council does not want to consider the exclusion, does it want to increase the number of on -sale liquor licenses available in the City? One option, to address a concern over bars versus restaurants, is to limit the amount of Class A licenses and not restrict or set a different limit for the Class B licenses. (As currently written, the license issued is a class A license unless specified otherwise by the applicant) By making some modifications to the liquor licensing section of the ordinance, the emphasis could be placed upon restaurant establishments, those where 51 or more of total revenues are derived from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages, rather than on the unrestricted sales found in the Class A license. Is the Council interested in restricting the amount of Class A licenses that would be applicable to land uses that are not considered restaurants, hotels, bowling centers, and other uses listed above? In other words would the Council like to limit the amount of liquor licenses establishments whose primary function is to serve liquor; for example a bar versus a restaurant. Similar to the response above, Class A licenses would be issued to properties that function more like a bar than a restaurant. The Council may wish to continue limiting the number of licenses and may in fact choose to reduce the current number available from 6 to some lower figure. Off -Sale Liquor Licenses. The_City also restncts_the number_of_off -sale liquor licenses_dependent upon population of_ the City. "One off -sale liquor license may be issued for each 6,500 of the city population attained, as determined by the most recent metropolitan council population estimates." The State does not restrict the number of off-sale liquor licenses allowed for class 3 cities, rather noting that "...the limit shall be determined by the governing body of the city." Under the City ordinance two off-sale licenses are allowed. Staff just received the April 1, 2003 population estimate for the City which was determined to be 16,794 Given the methodology the Met Council uses to determine the population, staff concurs with the estimate (Staff does not necessarily concur with accuracy of the methodology, however) Therefore the City would not permit another off -sale establishment until the population increased by 2,706, which would probably be in another three to four years. 3 Staff is not necessarily advocating increasing the number of off -sale liquor licenses available in the community. However, the Council should be aware that we have received several inquiries about obtaining a liquor license to open another store in the community. The Community Development Department received an inquiry as part of a discussion about redevelopment in the Downtown. SUMMARY The overarching question is whether the Council would like to permit additional liquor licenses to be available for certain land uses within the community Staff would recommend that additional licenses be made available for restaurants, which means amending the city code. There are several ways to implement that change: either increasing the number of licenses made available through the local code or recognizing the State statute that exempts restaurants, bowling centers and other listed uses from the total number of licenses permitted Or some combination of the two could be accomplished. The Council may also wish to look at the current licensing structure with the Class A and Class 8 licenses. If the main interest is to limit exclusive liquor stores (on -site establishments), it could limit the number of those licenses or modify the requirements for receipt of an on -sale liquor license to have some type of percentage of total revenues derived from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. Finally, the Council may wish to discuss whether to modify the off-sale liquor license apportionment from the current standard. 4 Excerpt from the City Council Work Session of August 11, 2004 Liquor License Regulations Community Development Director Lindquist led a discussion regarding the proposed changes in the ordinance that governs on -sale liquor licensing. The current City ordinance restricts the number of on -sale liquor licenses to six (6). State statue places the limit at 12. Recent State modifications allow exemptions for clubs, restaurants, hotels, bowling centers, and theaters Staff recommended that the City amend the ordinance to allow exemptions for restaurants. 0 m m en D r m N r 00 0 C cn 0 X CD C m [Northfield 1 Lakeville Farmington (Apple Valley IMunical Liquor Stores (West St. Paul (Chaska 'Oakdale North St. Paul (Lino Lakes Cottage Grove South St. Paul Inver Grove Heights (Hastings (Eagan Burnsville City 16,051 51,000 20,000 50,300 19,600 23,000 26,906 12,780 19,000 30,753 20,284 30,150 21,500 64,300 60,434 Populaton Estimate 1 Muni 1 Muni Muni Muni V None None None None None 12 None None None None Limit Average Average 10 4 N V 10 14 8 Current 17050 16051 17000 1 10000 1 25150 4905 2800 4600 2691 4260 3167 7688 10142 4307 2150 4593 7554 Stores Per Population Zoning /Market 1000 foot Separation Free Standing Building One Mile Separation Other Criteria/Comment 0 m m en D r m N r 00 0 C cn 0 X CD C m Entrez PubMed NCBI All Databases PubMed Nucleollde for Search PubMed About Entrez Text Version Entrez PubMed Overview Help 1 FAQ Tutorial New /Noteworthy E- Utilities All: 1 1 Review. 0 FULL -TEAT ARTICLE E' E \'1 ER Display Abstract Protein Genome Structure 1: Soc Sci Med. 2000 Aug;51(4):613 -7. Write to the Help Desk Nationa Libra of Medicine OMIM PMC PM1D: 10868674 [PubMed indexed for MEDLINE] GoI Clear r v u sr sr s. Limits Preview /Index History Clipboard Details Display Abstract J Show L 20 Sort by t Send to Health risk and inequitable distribution of liquor stores in African American neighborhood. Lai Show 120 i I Sort by Send to Page 1 of 2 !Sign jRegis Journals My NC Boo/ Related Articles, Links PubMed Services LaVeist TA, Wallace JM Jr. Journals Database McSH Database Single Citation Matcher Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. Batch Citation Matcher tlaveist@jhsph.edu Clinical Queries Special Queues LmkOut In this paper we examine whether the physical availability of alcohol is My NCBI (Cubby) greater in predominantly African American communities compared to predominantly white communities as indicated by the presence of off Related Resources premises liquor stores. We investigate the extent to which the income status order Documents of the residents of a community mediates the relationship between NLM Mobile NLM Catalog community composition and availability; explore racial com d alcohol ilabilit and ex lore whether NLM Gateway the intersection of race and class places low income African American TOXNET communities at increased risk to have such stores located in their Consumer Health communities. Multivariate analytic techniques are used to examine the Clinical Alerts ClinicalTrials gov relationship between community racial composition, median income of PubMed Central neighborhood residents and per capita number of alcohol outlets in 194 census tracts in Baltimore, Maryland. The analysis found that liquor stores are disproportionately located in predominantly black census tracts, even after controlling for census tract socioeconomic status. Census tracts that are both low income and predominantly African American have substantially more liquor stores per capita than other census tracts. Although it is beyond the scope of the present study. our data reveal significant associations between the presence of liquor stores and the risk of health- related social problems in low income neighborhoods. More research needs to be done on the impact of alcohol on the social, psychological, and physiological health of low income urban populations. http://www.ncbi nlm.nih. gov /entrez/ query.fcgi ?cmd Retrieve &db= PubMed &list_uids =l0... 9/20/2005 The Gazette The newspaper of The Jahns Hopkins University Corner Liquor Stores May Set Stage fcr Drug Trade By Mike Field Insights can come at the strangest times. Driving home one night to his family in suburban Pikesville, Thomas LaVeist noticed that in one inner city neighborhood known for its poverty and crime, he had passed no fewer than three separate liquor stores all in the space of about a city block. He was stopped at a traffic light thinking about this unusual concentration of liquor -to -go when, directly in front of his car, he watched a drug transaction take place. "It got me to thinking about the infrastructure of chaotic communities," said Dr. LaVeist, an assistant professor of health policy and management in the School of Public Health. "We are used to referring to the infrastructure necessary for a well- functioning community. Things like a police force that responds to crime, good schools, well- maintained roaas and so forth. As I thought about it, I began wondering if there was a necessary infrastructure for chaotic communities as well." Dr. LaVeist's curiosity soon lea him to take a closer look at the way drugs and alcohol are sold in Baltimore's poorest neighborhoods. "I have a friend who is a minister in West Baltimore, and he had told me in the past that he had a list of all the liquor licenses in the city," Dr. LaVeist recalled. "It occurred to me that there may be a correlation between liquor sales, ethnicity, social status and crime." Using the list of the city's 1,356 liquor licenses and an IBM personal computer, Dr. LaVeist set about trying to find connections between the way liquor was sold and the kinds of neighborhoods in which it is sold. Because his project has been and remains unfunded, most of his efforts have gone into working evenings, weekends, whenever he can find the time. And although Dr. LaVeist is quick to insist it is still too early to draw any specific conclusions, his work has nonetheless suggested that certain kinds of liquor sales may contribute to the infrastructure inherent in chaotic communities. "A key issue is not the sale of liquor so much as it is the way in which the liquor is sold," Dr. LaVeist said. "I'm not trying to re- establish temperance here. We've proven that prohibition won't work." To illustrate his point, Dr. LaVeist takes two unopenea bottles of beer from the bookshelf near his desk. The first bottle is the familiar 12 -ounce bottle of beer, in this case a long neck of Miller. The second bottle is more of a Dug, really, a giant 64 -ounce bottle of malt liquor conveniently contoured for easy handling. "These bottles represent the two primary ways in which alcohol is sold in Baltimore's poor communities," Dr. LaVeist said. "Essentially they fall into two categories: taverns and what I call corner stores. A tavern is where you go to buy a bottle of beer. A corner store is the sort of operation where you pay through a turnstile for a very limited selection of cheap wine, malt liquor and beer." Using a mapping program on his computer, Dr. LaVeist began to look at the kind of liquor license each premise held and compare it with the predominant ethnicity and social status of the neighborhood where it was located. "What you find is that in the more affluent neighborhoods- both black and white- -there are hardly any liquor licenses, and those that are there are almost exclusively associated with restaurants, hotels or private clubs," Dr. LaVeist said. "Furthermore, you find the more African Americans in an area, the fewer total liquor licenses there are, largely because there are few restaurants or hotels serving liquor within poor black neighborhoods." But it was the remaining licenses and their distribution that really struck Dr. LaVeist. "Overwhelmingly, you find taverns in poor white neighborhoods and corner stores in poor black ones," he said. "Probably some of this is a deep- seated cultural difference. In the low income Greek or Polisn neighborhoods, a corner tavern was a feature of life, just as it was back in the old country." It is the different functions these liquor outlets play within their communities that Dr. LaVeist is now investigating. "Taverns have a certain function and can arguably be said to build a sense of community," he said. "Patrons are drinking in a social environment where the bartender is legally sanctioned to prevent over indulgence. Furthermore, when you buy beer by the bottle or by the mug it is more expensive, which serves as another check against having too much to drink." Corner stores, by contrast, have no such social pact with the neighborhood. "The rules governing this kind of license require that the alcohol not be consumed on premises," Dr. LaVeist said. "In fact, you must be at least 100 feet away from the building before opening the bottle. Now what does this mean, practically speaking? It means you establish a sanctified pattern of people standing out on the street consuming liquor, a form of quasi -legal loitering. Furthermore, since these stores are selling the most alcohol for the least money, you have individuals drinking an entire 64 -ounce bottle of malt liquor, whicn has a mucn higher alcohol content than ordinary beer. "Look at how this bottle is ergonomically designed for ease of handling," he says, picking up the 64 -ounce bottle of malt liquor. "I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be around anyone who had consumed all this." The presence of these corner stores in Baltimore's poorest communities may be contributing to some of the social path- ologies they are experiencing, Dr. LaVeist believes. "What do you need as an infrastructure for open air drug markets he asks. "Well you need a pay phone, a route to escape and a reason to be standing around." Baltimore's infamous system of back alleys makes it easy to disappear quickly, and pay phones tend to be common in poorer neionoorhoods, where many residents are without phone service. It is the corner stores, which promote patterns of loitering, that may be contributing the final missing piece of the puzzle. "One thing I believe may be happening is that the location of the corner stores may be he_prng to support the infrastructure of the drug trade," Dr. LaVeist said. "It is too early in this study to say with any certainty, but I would not be surprised if we find a correlation there." Having plotted liquor licenses by type and location, Dr. LaVeist intends next to start matching crime statistics- particularly open air drug arrests -with the existing data. If, as he suspects, a strong correlation exists, then in the future community organizations and political leaders may want to pay more attention to the kinds of liquor licenses granted within specific communities. "What I'm really trying to do is identify the infrastructure that sustains chaotic communities," Dr. LaVeist said. "If we can identify some of these components then maybe we can begin to dismantle them. That's really what this research is all about." Go back to Previous Page Go to Gazette Homepage Verbrugge,Jamie From: Kalstabakken,Gary Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 12 09 PM To: Verbrugge,Jamie, Lindahl,Jason, Lrndguist,Kim Subject: Off -Sale Liquor Research for Council Below is the link to a web -site to a study conducted by the US Dept of Health and Human Services on alcohol issues. The parts below explain their "evidence scoring system" and the portions of the study most relevant to Council Member Sterner's request http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/PHD822/aap.aspx 1. Strong Level of Evidence Application. Practitioners can use the approach with the most assurance that the approach can produce the effect specified in the evidence statement. Here are the criteria for including evidence in this category: Consistent positive results of strong or medium effect from a series of studies, including: At least three well- executed studies of experimental or quasi- experimental design OR Two well- executed studies of experimental or quasi experimental design and consistent results from at least three case studies The use of at least two different methodologies Unambiguous time ordering of intervention and results A plausible conceptual model ruling out or controlling for alternative causal paths or explanations 2. Medium Level of Evidence Application. Although the number or rigor of the studies reviewed is limited, there is substantial support for the approach's ability to produce the effect specified in the evidence statement. Practitioners should exercise discretion in applying the approach and in assessing the process and outcomes. Here are the criteria for including evidence in this category: Consistent positive results from a series of studies, including At least two well executed studies with experimental or quasi experimental designs OR At least one well- executed study and three prevention case studies showing statistically significant or qualitatively clear effects The use of at least two different methodologies Unambiguous time ordering of intervention and results when so measured A plausible conceptual model, whether or not competing explanations have been ruled out t 3. Suggestive but Insufficient Evidence Application. The approach has shown promise for the effect specified, but it is not well documented. Practitioners should be cautious about using this approach. However, if the approach fits the local situation, practitioners may use it, paying special attention to its systematic testing and documentation. This category is used to describe research and/or practice evidence that (1) is based on a plausible conceptual model or on previous research and (2) is being demonstrated in rigorous evaluation studies or appropriate intervention programs currently in process. Here are the conditions that lead evidence to be included in this category: The evidence, although limited, appears to support a conclusion, but additional research is needed to fully support the conclusion. This condition often applies to areas in which there has been little study, such as those that are impractical to research or new areas of study. OR The evidence is associated with equivocal results. Effectiveness of the approach is supported in some studies but is not supported in others. 4. Substantial Evidence of Ineffectiveness Application. The approach has not demonstrated the intended results or has shown negative findings for the effects specified. Practitioners are advised not to use this approach at this time. This category describes research and practice evidence demonstrating that a prevention approach is not effective. Here are the conditions that lead evidence to be included in this category: The absence of a statistically significant effect in a majority of well- executed studies, including at least two quantitative studies with sample sizes sufficient to test for the significance of the effect OR The absence of a statistically significant negative effect in a majority of well- executed studies, including at least two quantitative studies with sample sizes sufficient to test for the significance of the effect Prevention Approach 4: Changing the Conditions of Availability Alcohol availability is associated with social, civic, and health problems and can be modified through government and community actions. These actions include two distinct dimensions: Controlling outlet density and restricting days and hours of alcohol sales Restricting availability of alcohol at sporting and recreational events, as well as at special locations such as parks and other publicly owned facilities While both aspects of this prevention approach are important, substantially more research is needed on the second (i.e., restricting availability at special events and locations). Activities of the Studies Reviewed The studies reviewed in this approach evaluated outcomes of "natural experiments," including changes in legislation regarding alcohol sales restrictions and regional differences in laws that allowed comparison between regions. Some of the changes involved the following activities: 2 Eliminating State and provincial monopolies and privatizing retail alcohol sales and wholesale alcohol sales and distribution Changing a State law to remove off -sale restrictions on the sale of wine and beer near campuses Comparing differences in county -level prohibitions and State and local laws, regulations, and policies pertaining to: liquor sales, distribution methods, minimum legal age for purchase, and licensing of off and on- premises alcohol outlets Comparing differences in county and city ordinances that range from liberal to rigid control over outlet density Instituting a law permitting grocery stores to sell table wine products The following activities were examined in studies and practice cases concerning alcohol availability at special events and locations: Provincial regulations permitting the sale of beer at sporting events Use of alcohol at city -owned recreational properties Municipal policies regulating alcohol sales at specially licensed social and recreational events in city owned or managed facilities Community policies that establish alcohol rationing, prohibit public drinking, and disallow congregating at parking lots and campgrounds Lessons Learned Levels of Evidence: Conditions of Availability The research evidence reviewed indicates that it is possible to implement efforts that result in changes in alcohol availability. There is medium evidence that an increase in the number of outlets per capita increases rates of alcohol consumption and alcohol related problems. The research and practice evidence reviewed indicates that it is possible to pass legislation regulating the sale and consumption of alcohol at special events and locations. There is suggestive but insufficient evidence that controlling alcohol availability and training servers in sporting arenas and at special events reduces the number of intoxicated persons and the rate of abusive incidents involving intoxication. Alcohol consumption Levels and the rates of alcohol related problems tend to increase when a greater density of outlets and increased hours of sale increase the availability of alcohol. Although there is a clear relationship among alcohol outlets, high poverty rates, and violence, the location and density of outlets are themselves related to community power. For example, zoning laws often keep liquor stores and high -risk businesses out of affluent neighborhoods. The following lessons pertain to the regulation of alcohol availability at special events and locations: A wide range of restrictions can be placed on special events, including restrictions on operating hours, 3 noise levels, general location of event, location of alcohol sales or places of consumption (such as beer gardens), advertising of alcohol, alcohol sponsors, age of servers, quantity of sales, size of containers, and condition of the customers. Alcohol sales can be discontinued before an event is over, giving patrons some time between their last drink and driving home. For example, alcohol sales can be discontinued at the end of the third quarter of a football game Sales of food and nonalcoholic beverages can be required during and after alcohol sales are cut off. Recommendations for Practice The following recommendations of the Expert Panel address general issues such as geographic spacing of outlets and community compatibility. Collect data on outlet density. When communities perceive problems related to outlet density, it is important that they initiate a data collection effort using individuals with skills in data collection and analysis. Important information that should be gathered includes police activities, citizen complaints, and State licensing complaints. Become aware of licensing laws and processes. Community prevention groups should become involved in issues such as density and spacing. They also need to become aware of licensing laws and ways in which citizens can become involved in the law- changing process. Laws are not changed unless there is involvement and activity on the part of those who are affected; often, it is the community that makes the difference. Consider neighborhood compatibility. A specific outlet may be incompatible with the surrounding area. For instance, an outlet may be incompatible with other businesses or local residents perhaps due to late -night entertainment or hours of closing. The Expert Panel recommends that all new applicants be interviewed by representatives of local residents and businesses and be able to demonstrate to the city or licensing body that the immediate neighborhood does not object to the business. The following Expert Panel recommendations regarding regulations at special events and locations address general issues such as alcohol control activities at community eN ents. Plan ahead. Introduce discussions about alcohol control activities, providing nonalcoholic beverages, and alcohol safety provisions early in the planning stages of community- sponsored festivals, street fairs, and other special events. Train servers. Make sure that the people who will serve alcoholic beverages at special events receive server training, understand relevant laws and policies, and know the guidelines for resolving problems. Disseminate rules. Develop simple guidelines for alcohol activities before special events and publicize them through signs, brochures, and printing of rules on tickets. Use physical visual aids to separate drinking adults from nondrinking ones. Providing nondrinking "family areas" decreases alcohol- related incidents. This approach also attracts family customers who may otherwise stop attending functions because they object to incidents of drunken rowdiness. Hand stamping adults or giving them identification bands as they enter special events helps to enforce no- sales-to- minors laws. Educate promoters. Alcohol related problems at sporting events, rock concerts, and other large special events can be categorized into two types. The first type includes unpleasant behavior, rowdiness. fights, and personal and property damage that occurs at the site before and during the event. The second type includes arrests for DWI, driving casualties, street fights, and other incidents that occur after and away 4 from the event site, often on the way home. Promoters are more likely to pay attention to the first type. Fewer promoters adequately address the second type. Prevention practitioners can sensitize promoters to the second type of problems and the promoters' potential contribution in reducing them. Address the need for a balance of interests. Permitting and controlling alcohol use at sporting and special events involves balancing several needs and concerns. Alcohol sales are a substantial source of profit for stadium owners, sports teams, and catering companies. If alcohol related problems become numerous and severe, however, attendance may suffer and liability issues can arise. Community interests can influence private profit interests, helping all concerned to work together to achieve an acceptable balance Level of Evidence: Hours and Days of Sale The research evidence reviewed indicates that. in relation to changes in the days and hours of alcohol sales: There is medium evidence that expanding the hours or days of alcohol sales increases the rates of alcohol consumption and alcohol- related problems. Prevention Approach 5: Changing Hours and Days of Sale Governments often influence the availability of alcohol by specifying the hours of sale at specific sites and by allowing sales only on certain days. Although seldom designed for prevention purposes, such changes are natural experiments that provide opportunities to examine the effects on overall alcohol sales and patterns of consumption. Activities of the Studies Reviewed The studies reviewed evaluated outcomes of natural experiments resulting from changed alcohol sales laws. These changes included the following: Increasing, decreasing, or shifting the hours during which taverns can sell alcohol Prohibiting Saturday sales at wine and spirits shops Most of the research in this area reflects recent experience with extending rather than reducing hours or days of sale and is based on research conducted outside the United States. Lessons Learned Alcohol consumption levels and rates of alcohol related problems tend to increase when the hours and days of sale increase. Reducing availability is difficult in an era when consumer convenience is such a high priority. Even though one experiment (in Norway) demonstrated clear positive results from Saturday closing, the political support was lacking to continue or extend the closing. Recommendations for Practice Know the law. It's important for communities to be familiar with State and Local laws regarding hours and days of operation. Be alert for chances to make the case for limited availability. Knowing the law will enable communities to s recognize and take advantage of opportunities to exercise control. Be alert to seemingly minor or innocuous changes in availability. Proposals to extend hours or days of sale should be evaluated in light of the fact that it is nearly impossible to reverse such changes. Prevention Approach 6: Community -Based Prevention Approach Community -based initiatives to change local laws, regulations, or policies offer a powerful resource for decreasing alcohol availability and the accompanying alcohol- related problems. (This approach combines the most promising elements of the other five approaches.) Activities of the Studies Reviewed Launching a comprehensive prevention program that included mass media programming, a school -based education program, parent education, community organizing, and health policy development components Developing a community coalition of merchants, police officers, and community organizations Organizing a public education campaign led by a local council on alcoholism and drug abuse in concert with the hospitality industry and community-based prevention groups Setting up a coalition that included a city planning committee, the city council, and other city agencies working in concert with a university-based prevention institute Conducting a mass media advocacy program Lessons Learned The following are lessons learned and conclusions that can be drawn from the research and practice evidence reviewed for this approach. Community-based activities to control alcohol availability can lead to the development of other alcohol related prevention activities. Community -based activities to control alcohol availability can be used to enhance the effectiveness of prevention programs aimed at reducing drinking by individuals. Ad hoc coalitions can result in the establishment of permanent entities for maintaining policy changes on alcohol availability and developing other prevention activities. Community organizing initiatives can be combined with mass media campaigns to increase coverage of and debate on alcohol availability issues and proposed changes in local laws, regulations, or policies. Levels of Evidence: Community-Based Approach The research and practice evidence reviewed indicates that community -based approaches can produce coalitions that include multiple partners and address diverse issues: There is strong evidence that community-based prevention activities can result in decreases in alcohol consumption. There is suggestive but insufficient evidence that these programs can diminish driving after drinking, traffic death and injury, and speeding. 6 community based prevention a prevention approach that relies on several interventions in concert, involving various sections of the community, drawing on multiple local resources to address a community problem. Recommendations for Practice It is important to note that, to be effective, coalitions need the participation of the retail and wholesale beverage industries. Use multiple, integrated strategies. Multicomponent, community -based strategies are more effective than single- component strategies. The individual components of a multicomponent strategy strengthen, complement, and support one another. Multicomponent strategies create an additive effect that is greater than the sum of the individual components. Also, in the undesirable eN ent of one component having to be eliminated, the remaining components may continue to exert a significant preventive effect. For example, in the area of responsible beverage service, a multicomponent strategy could include mass media promotion, server training, drinking establishment management policy and procedure development, community monitoring to observe whether outlets sen e intoxicated patrons and card youthful patrons, and collaboration with law enforcement to take action against offenders. Develop ongoing support for change. Supporting change is just as important as initiating it. Community coalitions that focus only on the implementation of a policy or regulation will often see their gains diminish unless they pay attention to sustaining the policy changes and related prevention activities. Continuously cultivate membership. Prevention practitioners need to engage in ongoing efforts to recruit new members, maintain existing members, and respond to new requests. Community coalitions should remain involved and continue to monitor the community so that they are ready to take action as new issues of alcohol availability arise. Encourage communities to utilize practitioners. Prevention practitioners are an important source of information, guidance, and resources for community coalitions. When staff changes occur, it is important for new practitioners to introduce themselves to the community and work to establish a trusting relationship. Organize mindfully. The success of community coalitions depends on the participation and collaboration of local community groups, public agencies, and organizers. Grassroots community members in coalitions should have authority over the direction of the prevention efforts equal to that of service providers, city officials, and other professional participants. Some agencies and groups are good partners in certain coalitions but not in others, depending on the issues. For example, the police are good coalition partners for public safety issues. As public employees, however, their need to remain impartial would prohibit them from being coalition partners for other, more politicized, issues. Identify, secure, and organize data to document your case. In preparation for community coalition interventions, collect baseline data to demonstrate the relationship between outlet density and problems. In many cases, public agencies such as health and welfare departments, ABC's, police, and education departments have such data in public records. Pay special attention to finding innovative ways of visually presenting the information. Developing and Delivering Environmental Approaches Action on both the State and community levels is necessary to implement environmental approaches for reducing availability- related problems. The community must establish through local legislative bodies public policies that apply specific public health and safety standards to alcohol availability.The community must then apply the standards, on a case -by -case basis, to alcohol outlets. Local planning and zoning ordinances offer a powerful opportunity to manage retail availability. Community members should be actively involved in developing these ordinances Zoning ordinances can place the following limits on alcohol outlets: On -sale and off -sale outlets can be limited to certain zones or disallowed altogether. Density restrictions can limit the number of alcohol outlets per unit of population, for a geographic area, or as a percentage of all retail alcohol outlets in a given commercial area. Spacing restrictions can specify the distance between alcohol outlets or between alcohol outlets and schools, churches, residences, parks, and playgrounds. Hours of operation can be limited. Conditions of design and operation can be established to ensure that the premises are maintained safely and securely and that appropriate practices are followed to prevent sales to underage youth, inebriates, drinking drivers, and others. Localities can make active or passive use of their zoning ordinances. Active use involves a conditional use permit review of each application. The review is conducted through a public hearing that gives neighbors and public agencies an opportunity to identify high -risk features of the application. Passive use involves using conformance to published zoning requirements as the basis for granting a use permit. To take action on alcohol availability problems, community members must work with police, planning, community development, and parks and recreation departments. and city attorney offices. Coordination and mutual support on alcohol guidelines can improve policy formation, enhance policy implementation, and provide dear signals and expectations for the public regarding the reduction of availability- related problems. The four steps outlined here can help localities use their existing powers to become effective partners with the ABC authority in a joint effort to prevent problems related to alcohol availability. Each step represents a "cluster" of conceptually interrelated activities for implementing environmental approaches in communities. The activities in these steps overlap and aren't always sequential early steps can be revisited as additional information becomes available. conditional use permit a permit that is granted pursuant to certain conditions, allowing the sale or consumption of alcohol. 8 Jt ROSEMOUNT M E M O R A N D U M To: Council Member Phillip Sterner From: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Date: September 20, 2005 Subject: Off -Sale Liquor Location Questions ADMINISTRATION In response to your phone calls of September 19 and 20 regarding consideration of a liquor ordinance amendment, I have researched the following. 1. S. St. Paul allows ten hquor stores but only has two, why? I spoke with S. St. Paul City Clerk Christy Wilcox. She explained that their population is about 20,000, the fee for an off -sale hcense is reasonable, and the market does not warrant an additional store at this time. Ms Wilcox noted that surrounding communities have several hquor stores near S. St. Paul's borders. 2. Is Cub Foods still interested in an off -sale liquor store addition? Manager Doug Hagerty indicated they are interested but not committed at this time. 3. What are the square footage sizes of the current off -sale liquor stores and the proposed m companson to a Big Top hquor store? Shenanigan's Wine Spirits 8,800 sq. ft. Rosemount Liquor Mart 5000 sq. ft. Steiner MGM 5,000 sq ft. Loch Bldg. (DC Tax Assessor) 10,971 sf Big Top Liquors -Eagan 8,500 sq ft. 4. What distance is between the current hquor stores, Cub Foods, Steiner, and Loch Bldg> What distance are they from residential, churches and school. Planning Dept. prepared a map with range circles to demonstrate distance. Residential lots are located near all sites. The minimum distance from churches and schools allowed by the City Code (3 -1 -7 C.) is 300 feet measured from the main front entrance following the route of ordinary pedestrian travel 3 -1 -6 3-1-7 course of business or selling or leasing merchandise, fixtures or supplies to such establishment; or an interest of five percent (5 or less in any corporation holding a City liquor license. A person who receives monies from time to time directly or indirectly from licensee in the absence of a bona fide consideration therefor and excluding bona fide gifts or donations, shall be deemed to have a pecuniary interest in such retail license. In determining bona fide the reasonable value of the goods or things received as consideration for the payment by the licensee and all other facts reasonably tending to prove or disapprove the existence of any purposeful scheme or arrangement to evade the prohibitions of this Section shall be considered (Ord. II, 5 -20 -1986, eff. 5 -31 -1986, amd. Ord. XVI.38, 2 -17 -1998) 3 7: PLACES INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSE: A. General Prohibition: No license shall be issued for any place or any business ineligible for such a license under State law. B. License Refused Where Taxes Due: No license shall be granted or renewed for operation on any premises on which real estate taxes, assessments or other financial claims of the City or of the State are due, delinquent, or unpaid. If an action has been commenced pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 278, questioning the amount or validity of taxes, the Council may, on application by the licensee, waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted, however, for taxes, or any portion thereof, which remain unpaid for a period exceeding one year after becoming due unless such one year period is extended through no fault of the licensee. C. Distance From School Or Church: No license shall be granted to any applicant whose place of business is within three hundred feet (300') /9f O&s of any school or within three hundred feet (300') of any church. In applying this restriction the distance shall be measured from the main front entrance following the route of ordinary pedestrian travel. (Ord. II, 5 -20 -1986, eff. 5 -31 -1986) D. Nudity And Sexual Conduct Prohibited. No license shall be held at any premises where nudity or sexual acts or conduct are permitted to occur. 598 1. For the purposes of this subsection "nudity" and "sexual conduct" are defined as follows C Co City of Rosemount CLL- 157203 RS215 -1 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ORDINANCE NO.XVI.40 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LIQUOR LICENSES, AMENDING ROSEMOUNT CODE SECTIONS 3 -1 -2 AND 3 -1 -8. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Rosemount City Code Section 3 -1 -2, paragraph B is amended to read as follows: B. On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses: On -sale licenses shall be issued only to hotels, restaurants and exclusive liquor stores and shall permit on -sale of liquor or wine. On sale licenses shall be of two classes. 1. Class B licenses may be issued only to hotels and restaurants where 51 percent or more of total revenues are derived from the sale of food and non alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. In the case of Class B licenses issued to restaurants operated in conjunction with a bowlmg center, 25 percent or more of total revenues must be derived from the sale of food and non alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises Total revenues is defined as all revenues from the sale of food, alcoholic beverages and non alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. 2. Class A licenses may be issued to hotels, restaurants and exclusive liquor stores and are unrestricted as to the percentage of revenues denved from the sale of food and non alcoholic beverages. Class A licenses may not be issued for any premises which is on a lot, piece or parcel of land which is adjacent to County Road 42 or for any premises mar. 19 q q which is within three hundred (300) feet of the right of way of County Road 42. All on sale intoxicating liquor Licenses k will be issued as Class A licenses unless application is made for a Class B license. Section 2. Rosemount City Code Section 3 -1 -8 is amended by adding new paragraph N as follows: N. Certification. No Class B on -sale intoxicating liquor license shall be renewed to a licensee that has failed to submit a statement signed by an independent certified public accountant attesting that 51 percent or more (or 25 percent in the case of restaurants operated in conjunction with bowling centers) of total revenues of the