Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Set Hearing for Liquor License Violation - PCS Liquors LLC, dba Rosemount Liquor Mart 4ROSEI VIOL 1 NT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting: July 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: Set Hearing for Liquor License Violation AGENDA SECTION: PCS Liquors LLC, dba Rosemount N 'w Business Liquor Mart PREPARED BY: Gary Kalstabakken, Chief of Police AGENDA NO. c•a• ATTACHMENTS: None APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion authorizing staff to hire a hearing examiner to conduct a hearing for the alleged liquor violation committed by PCS Liquors LLC, dba Rosemount Liquor Mart. Staff is directed to post the meeting in accordance with Minnesota statutes after the hearing date has been set in consultation with the examiner, PCS Liquors LLC and the city attorney and staff. OR Motion directing staff to set a hearing date for the alleged liquor violation committed by PCS Liquors LLC, dba Rosemount Liquor Mart with the City Council conducting the hearing. Staff is directed to post the meeting in accordance with Minnesota statutes after the hearing date has been set in consultation with the City Council, PCS Liquors LLC, city attorney and staff. ISSUE A compliance check with a cooperating under -age buyer was conducted on April 24, 2008. An employee of Rosemount Liquor Mart did sell an alcoholic beverage to the buyer in violation of state law and the City Code regulating liquor licenses. This is the fourth sale to an under -age person by Rosemount Liquor Mart in a 37 month time period. The owners of Rosemount Liquor Mart have requested a hearing on the proposed suspension of the liquor license and other civil penalties as a result of the most recent violation. BACKGROUND The previous violations at Rosemount Liquor Mart occurred on March 24, 2005, February 23, 2006 and November 22, 2006. Because these violations occurred within 37 months of the violation on April 24, 2008, it is being viewed as a third violation by Rosemount Liquor Mart. The owners of Rosemount Liquor Mart were sent a Consent Order with proposed penalties for this most recent violation. In accordance with the City Code and Minnesota state statute, Rosemount Liquor Mart responded by requesting a hearing on the violation. City Code provides that the requested hearing may be conducted by the City Council or that the Council may appoint a hearing examiner to conduct the hearing. Either method may be used and it is up to Council's discretion which to choose. If a hearing examiner is appointed by Council, it is recommended that staff be directed to contract with an attorney with experience serving as a hearing examiner for liquor violations. The hearing examiner will conduct a hearing and will then present findings to the Council. In the findings, the hearing examiner may choose to support the penalty proposed by the City, support the penalty proposed by the liquor licensee or to recommend a penalty different from either proposal. The hearing examiner's findings are then presented to the Council and Council may then accept the findings as presented and impose the penalties as presented in the findings or Council may choose to impose penalties different than those included in the findings. The cost of hiring a hearing examiner is paid entirely by the City. If Council chooses to conduct the hearing themselves, the Council will make a determination of the appropriate penalty to impose after holding the hearing. Both staff and the liquor license holder will present testimony directly to the Council in support of their respective positions. While there are no costs associated with this hearing, it may be more difficult to coordinate the schedules of all Council members than it is to work with one hearing examiner. The use of a hearing examiner does theoretically provide a third party objective review of the City's policy and penalties. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council authorize the hiring of a hearing examiner to conduct the requested hearing by PCS Liquors LLC, dba Rosemount Liquor Mart. 2 ROSEMOUNT M E M O R A N D U M To: Mayor and Council Kim Lindquist, Acting Administrator From: Gary Kalstabakken, Chief of Poll Date: May 14, 2008 Subject: Rosemount Liquor POLICE DEPARTMENT On Wednesday, May 14, 2008, I met with the owners of Rosemount Liquor and Wine Cellar to discuss the imposition of their pending eleven days of suspension of their off -sale liquor license. The agreement for implementation of the eleven (11) days is proposed to be as follows; License suspended Monday, May 12 Wednesday, May 21 (9 consecutive days) and from Tuesday, May 27 Wednesday, May 28, 2008 (2 days). Rosemount Liquor will have an employee posted as a "door man" each Friday and Saturday evening, 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. from May 23 through June 21, 2008. These weekends coincide with the majority of local school proms and graduation events. For the new violation of April 24, 2008, a final resolution was not settled on but discussion was held and I believe a settlement may be reached without a hearing. While the number of total days of a suspension served and additional days pending were left open, the direction was that twenty -one (21) days would again be the total combined days. In addition to the suspension, the owners have agreed to the following stipulations: 100% of employees will be trained prior to the signing of a Consent Order. Implementation of an employee reward system for passing compliance checks and detecting under age buyers. Rosemount Liquor will contract with an outside vendor to conduct secret shopper compliance checks at least monthly for twelve months and report the findings to the Chief of Police. Rosemount Liquor will post a door man on random Friday and Saturday evenings at least monthly for the next twelve months. The only other issue discussed was including a graduated penalty to be imposed if another violation occurs within different time frames. For example, Compliance check failure within 12 months of April violation: Revocation for 1 yr. Compliance check failure within 24 months: All pending days of suspension served. Compliance check failure within 36 months: 50% of pending days served. While this proposal was agreed to in principle, it was not finalized and I stated I needed to have further discussions with Council.