Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. Minutes of the February 1, 2010 City Council Special Meeting Proceedings4A, ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDSINGS FEBRUARY 1, 2010 CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a special meeting of the Rosemount City Council was held on Monday, February 1, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 2875 145`h Street West, Rosemount. Mayor Droste called the meeting to order with Council Members DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan, Weisensel and Bills attending. Staff members present included City Administrator Johnson, Chief of Police Kalstabakken, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Brotzler, Director of Parks and Recreation Schultz, City Attorney Sonsalla and City Clerk Domeier. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA City Administrator Johnson stated there was additional information provided by staff and the licensee for item 8.b. Resolution Imposing Civil Penalty on PCS Liquors, LLC, D /B /A Rosemount Liquor and Wine Cellar. Motion by Droste. Second DeBettignies. Motion to adopt the agenda as it stands with the additional information that was passed out. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Shoe - Corrigan pulled item 6.g. Resolution of Support for Statewide Complete Streets Policy for discussion. Motion by Bills. Second by Weisensel. Motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of 6.g. a. Bills Listing b. Minutes of the December 15, 2009 City Council Work Session Proceedings c. Minutes of the January 13, 2010 City Council Work Session Proceedings d. Minutes of the January 19, 2010 City Council Regular Meeting Proceedings e. Ordinance Relating to Municipal Primary Elections (Ordinance 2010 -02) f. Budget Encumbrances (Resolution 2010 09) g. Resolution of Sttppert for Stoewide Complete St±eets Pokey h. Change Order #3 — Akron Avenue Trunk Utility & Railroad Improvements, City Project #417 i. Joint Powers Agreement for Waste Abatement Community Funding Ayes: DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan, Droste, Weisensel, Bills Nays: None. Motion carried. ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDSINGS FEBRUARY 1, 2010 6.g. Resolution of Support for Statewide Complete Streets Policy Council Member Shoe - Corrigan pulled the item for public information only. Director of Public Works /City Engineer Brotzler provide the background information on complete streets and the proposed Resolution. Motion by Shoe - Corrigan. Second by DeBettignies. Motion to adopt a resolution expressing support of a statewide complete streets policy. Ayes: Shoe - Corrigan, Droste, Weisensel, Bills, DeBettignies Nays: None. Motion carried. (Resolution 2010 -10) OLD BUSINESS 8.a. Roundabout — 2010 Street Improvements Project — City Project #428 Director of Public Works /City Engineer Brotzler provided background on the option of a roundabout on Shannon Parkway at the 133`d Court /Shannon Park Elementary entrance intersection as part of the 2010 Street Improvements Project. He stated that at this time the School Board did not support the proposed roundabout. He explained the improvements that are identified as an option including the road widening of Shannon Parkway at the 133`d Court /Shannon Park Elementary entrance to accommodate turn lanes. Kurt Bills questioned if speed limits and signage should be discussed now as part of the road improvements. Mr. Brotzler replied that at the last work session the City Council did discuss the authorization of school speed zones along Shannon Parkway. The City Council deferred discussion and implementation of school speed zones until spring to accommodate the installation of signage. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan questioned how effective the signage would be for slowing traffic down and creating calming effects. Mr. Brotzler stated that while signage will help it was anticipated that with the restriping of the project that it would be another mechanism to create traffic calming along Shannon Parkway. Chief of Police Kalstabakken added that internal discussion has taken place regarding increased enforcement along busier streets such as Shannon Parkway during the busier times of the day. The Police Department will work over the next few months on the culture of City streets in a more aggressive manner. Mr. Brotzler added that more information will be forthcoming about the installation of permanent driver feedback signs. The signs will increase driver's awareness are another tool to promote traffic calming. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan questioned if a roundabout would provide more of a traffic calming effect. Mr. Brotzler stated that a roundabout would provide the physical requirement for drivers to alter their speeds and driving habits. Council Member Bills suggested the use of rumble strips along that stretch of Shannon Parkway. Mr. Brotzler explained the challenges with installing rumble strips on a collector street. Collector streets are designed to carry more traffic at higher speeds. He added that there would be winter maintenance issues. Council Member Bills also suggested alternative striping indicating that the area would have children. Mr. Brotzler replied that striping component could be discussed with the school speed zones implemented this spring. ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDSINGS FEBRUARY 1, 2010 Council Member Shoe - Corrigan questioned if the school was asked to participate in providing right - of -way for the turn lanes. Mr. Brotzler clarified that additional right -of -way from the school was not needed. Motion by DeBettignies. Second by Weisensel. Motion to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the design of street and intersection improvements for the 2010 Street Improvements Project, City Project #428 to include widening of Shannon Parkway at the 133`d Court /Shannon Park Elementary entrance to accommodate turn lanes. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan stated that the roundabout would provide the most benefits and provide traffic calming. She stated she would not support turn lanes. Ayes: Droste, Weisensel, Bills, DeBettignies Nays: Shoe - Corrigan. Motion carried. 8.b. Resolution Imposing Civil Penalty of PCS Liquors, LLC, DIBIA Rosemount Liquor and Wine Cellar Chief of Police Kalstabakken stated the intended purpose of the item was to impose a penalty on the liquor violation that occurred at Rosemount Liquor. Mr. Kalstabakken provided background from the January 19, 2010 City Council meeting where Rosemount Liquor told staff they were not contesting the facts of the case but wanted to appeal to the City Council for leniency in the sentencing. He added that the proposed penalty was based upon a pattern of violations and that Rosemount Liquor was the only licensee in Rosemount to ever have five violations and they had five within 55 months. The City of Rosemount does not have a penalty matrix because it has taken the stance of evaluating the totality of the circumstance and determine penalties on a case by cases basis. Mr. Kalstabakken stated he reviewed other City's penalty matrixes for comparative data including the look -back periods used in determining penalties. He provided a summary of comparative data for cities near Rosemount. He also explained how violations are determined in state statute noting that the proposed penalty fell within all the norms of the state statute and cities within the area. State statute allows the issuing authority for liquor licenses to The civil penalty is separate from the criminal penalty. After explaining the differences and referring to a letter from Criminal Attorney Fluegel he added there was no need to wait for the criminal process to be completed before issuing a civil penalty. He added that Mr. Fluegel drafted a letter in response to the video and letter submitted by Rosemount Liquor stating he would be moving forward with charges on the criminal portion of the case. City Attorney Sonsalla stated that Mr. Kalstabakken was correct in noting that the civil and criminal charges were separate processes. She stated the City Council should make their decision based upon the facts presented this evening but may choose to wait until the criminal process is complete. ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDSINGS FEBRUARY 1, 2010 Charles Christ and Sean Schumacher, co- owners of Rosemount Liquor, were present to address the City Council. Mr. Schumacher stated they acknowledge that the criminal case was separate from the civil case and did not dispute the facts. Mr. Schumacher talked about how their ownership and management style changed over the last five years including wholesale changes in the practices and operations since the November 2006 violation. Mr. Christ showed the video displaying the series of events on December 15. He explained the process for scanning a sale. Mr. Schumacher added that the employee has true remorse. He talked about the number of hours he works per day, the 911 calls for theft and their customer base and sales. Mr. Schumacher stated he brought up the entrapment defense after meeting with Mr. Kalstabakken because one of their customers is a criminal lawyer who asked to see the tape. He stated that the attorney watched it and in her mind there was improper pressure, badgering and persuasion. Mayor Droste questioned if there was a sign posted about no valid purchases without an ID. Mr. Schumacher stated that a sign is posted on the cash register. Mayor Droste questioned if Rosemount Liquor was incenting its employees. Both Mr. Christ and Mr. Schumacher replied that they were not offering any incentives on sales. Mr. Schumacher added that the only time they have offered an incentive was in 2008 when using an outside agency to conduct compliance checks. If an employee passed they received a $100 bonus. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan stated that during the last violation a compromise was made and 15 days of the suspension were stayed. Mr. Schumacher replied that those 15 days were served as a part of the violation already. He added that based upon past practice anyone else in Rosemount with the same violation would have received three days suspension and a $1,000 fine. Council Member Weisensel questioned what Rosemount Liquor was doing differently now. Mr. Schumacher replied that the employees have been drilled to not enter a birth date without identification. He explained that the magnetic strips on some Minnesota, Wisconsin and Military IDs cannot be read but the preferred method is to swipe all IDs. Council Member DeBettignies stated that if a customer could not produce an ID a sale should not be made. Mr. Schumacher stated that residents felt Rosemount Liquor carded more than any other business in town. He added that the employee that made the sale was immediately terminated. Council Member Weisensel stated the challenges created with the perception that an underage youth can walk into an establishment and purchase liquor and walk out without being carded. He questioned how to explain to the residents why the license was not revoked. Mr. Schumacher invited those residents to come to Rosemount Liquor and guaranteed they would be carded. He did not condone the sale. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan stated that employee should have turned the customer away. Mr. Christ wished that the video had audio. Council Member DeBettignies stated the audio would make no difference because a minor walked out with an item. Mr. Schumacher stated that they are in the process of trying to sell the business. His main reason for appearing before the City Council was to clear the public perception that he did not care about serving minors and being egregious conducting their business. ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDSINGS FEBRUARY 1, 2010 Mayor Droste stated his disappointment with the number of times this discussion has taken place with Rosemount Liquor and other establishments. Council Member Bills understood the persuasiveness of teenagers but that they should have said no. He questioned if the City Council was setting up the taxpayers for backing out of the recommended action. Ms. Sonsolla clarified that there would be no liability upon the City based upon the penalty imposed. Mayor Droste questioned the look back periods cities use for violations. Mr. Kalstabakken stated there was not a standard matrix that is out there but noted some similarities between cities where some are based upon the number of violations or the types of violations. He added that cities try to make it clear in their code that they are allowed to go outside of the matrix and that it is only a guideline to follow based upon the circumstance. He added that in Rosemount some consent orders have a 24 month look back period and others have been 36 months. He explained the violations that have occurred at Rosemount Liquor and the look back period used outlining the details of each violation. He also explained more about the compliance check process in utilizing underage individuals to do the cooperating sales. Mayor Droste questioned how neighboring cities conduct compliance checks. Mr. Kalstabakken stated that other cities practices are similar to Rosemount. All agencies attend the same training that is provided by the State. Mr. Schumacher spoke of the age verification software they use and questioned if other establishments are using similar systems. Mr. Kalstabakken stated that other establishments in Rosemount have age verification devices where a birth date is entered. He stated that if an employee doesn't insist upon seeing an ID a purchaser could provide a birth date that is false to make them of age and see what happens. He added that employees should look at the ID to confirm the birth date is true. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan talked about the reduction of penalties for Rosemount Liquor in April 2008 was in part because the age verification software was going to be purchased. Mr. Schumacher stated the software was implemented a month before the deadline. Council Member DeBettignies stated that the system is only as good as the person operating it. Mr. Christ talked about the changed made in their hiring processes. Mr. Schumacher talked about the MLBA training the staff attends. Mayor Droste stated that it was a management issue and talked about various MADD events including the message being sent to Rosemount residents. Mr. Schumacher spoke of the profit lost during the suspension. He added that the employee mistakes reflect upon the supervisors and that the public indictment that he didn't care or mind the store as he should was a concern to him more than anything else. Council Member Bills stated that the elected body has to weigh out the balance between the MADD issue and the small business owner aspect. He questioned what part of the violation hurt Rosemount Liquor the most. Mr. Schumacher stated that the 30 days would hurt more than the monetary fine. He added that Rosemount Liquor's only option is to sell the business. He added that their lawyer attempted to get a Temporary Restraining Order on December 24 to prevent the closing on December 28. However, the City responded that if Rosemount Liquor was open on December 28 it would be considered that they were making sales without a license and would go to jail. ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDSINGS FEBRUARY 1, 2010 Mayor Droste questioned if the violations go with the establishment after a sale. Mr. Kalstabakken stated that a true sale without any management contract would not be a carryover from the previous license. He added that a new owner would get a fresh start. Mayor Droste also questioned the number of calls to the Police Department. Mr. Kalstabakken stated that Rosemount Liquor has placed calls related to theft but does not have a significantly high number. Council Member Weisensel questioned when the sale would take place. Mr. Schumacher replied that he received an email from the broker that the purchaser is in the process of doing a business valuation and based upon that a closing date will be set. Council Member Weisensel was concerned that March 1 date would not allow enough time for a sale to occur. Mr. Schumacher stated the City has received an application for a new off -sale license that would take over Rosemount Liquor. Mr. Kalstabakken stated that the City has not received an application. Mayor Droste questioned how long the process would be to approve a new liquor license. City Clerk Domeier stated that the process is typically 45 days. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan wavered between imposing the severest penalty noting the things that can happen with underage drinking and recognizing that after the last penalty the installation of software, changes in training and firing of any employee showing some due diligence. She stated that Rosemount Liquor is responsible for the sale that occurred but would be open to some negotiation on the penalty. Mayor Droste questioned the wide latitude cities have in imposing penalties. City Attorney Sonsolla concurred and provided examples of what other cities have done when penalties occur. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan stated that the fifteen suspended days have been served. Mr. Kalstabakken stated that the suspension served was part of a previous penalty and that the new penalty was a separate issue. He added that on two occasions the City has stayed or suspended the dates and there is always hesitancy from the owners to serve the penalty. He talked about the extra staff and City Attorney time required in December, 2009 when Rosemount Liquor stated they did not have to serve the suspension because due process was not followed. Mr. Kalstabakken requested that should the City Council impose a penalty that no days be stayed to avoid that reoccurrence of events. Council Member Weisensel shared concerns about a 30 day suspension because he was at the point of revocation. He also shared concerns about the market value of the businesses and suggested extending the suspension date to allow the sale to be complete. Council Member DeBettignies understood the concerns about the market but stated he favored moving forward with the full compliance of the recommended action. He did not believe the market would affect a new application from being submitted. He added that the City has been down this road too many times with Rosemount Liquor and that he fully supported the motion as drafted. Mayor Droste agreed that the City needed to move forward. ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDSINGS FEBRUARY 1, 2010 Motion by DeBettignies. Second by Shoe - Corrigan. Motion to approve a resolution imposing a civil penalty of a 30 day license suspension and $2000 civil penalty on PCS Liquors, LLC, D /B /A Rosemount Liquor and Wine Cellar for a violation of the City's liquor license regulations. Council Member Weisensel asked for discussion regarding the change of the suspension from March 1 to April 1. City Administrator Johnson stated that the resolution could be modified to April 1. Mr. Kalstabakken stated that the April 1 date would be set with a purpose but that it requires cooperation of the new buyer and that the City would have no control over a new licensee submitting an application or guaranteeing that the process would be complete by April 1. Council Member DeBettignies did not favor the change in dates but did withdraw his motion. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan also withdrew her second to the previous motion. Motion by Weisensel. Second by Shoe - Corrigan. Motion to approve a resolution imposing a civil penalty of a 30 day license suspension and $2000 civil penalty on PCS Liquors, LLC, D /B /A Rosemount Liquor and Wine Cellar for a violation of the City's liquor license regulations with the resolution indicating the licensee would be suspended for 30 consecutive business days starting April 1, 2010 in lieu of March 1. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan stated that the $2,000 is due and that Rosemount Liquor will be expected to serve the suspension on April 1 without any further discussion. Ayes: Weisensel, Bills, Shoe - Corrigan, Droste Nays: DeBettignies. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Droste reviewed the calendar of upcoming meetings. The next City Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2010. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council and upon a motion by Droste, second by DeBettignies. The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy Domeier, City Clerk