Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12A - Liquor Compliance ChecksO~ PRI~~`Y ~ 4646 Dakota Street S.E. c~ .~~ Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 ,~ '~iNrrESO~~' , CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: February 16, 2010 AGENDA #: 12A PREPARED BY: Frank Boyles, City Manager AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT REGARDING LIQUOR COMPLIANCE CHECKS DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to request a council determination regarding the number of compliance checks the City should be undertaking for each liquor licensee. Histo Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A sets forth the terms, licensing, consumption, sales, hours of sale and all other matters pertaining to the retail sale, distribution and consumption of liquor and malt Liquor products. Under the terms of the statutes, cities may be more restrictive. Prior Lake City Code Section 301.2100 "Compliance Checks" provides in part that, "...from time to time, but at least once per year, the City shall conduct compliance checks. Such compliance checks may involve, but are not limited to, engaging minors to enter the Licensed premises to attempt to purchase alcohol and alcohol related products. ... no-minor used in compliance checks shall attempt to use a false identification misrepresenting the minors age and all minors lawfully engaged in a compliance check shall answer all questions about the minors age asked by the licensee or his/her employee and shall produce any identification for which he or she is asked." Current Circumstances For the last few years we have conducted two compliance checks of each on- and off-sale establishment annually. There are 17 such licenses presently issued. Compliance checks are sometimes conducted for temporary licenses as was the case with PLABA and the Chamber. fn addition to the compliance checks the City has enacted an ordinance which provides for criminal penalties for the person who violated the liquor laws and civil penalties for the owner. The civil .penalties are progressive and result in license revocation if the vendor has three violations within a 36-month period. At a recent meeting the Council asked the staff to report on whether additional compliance checks would further our efforts. ISSUES: Drug use and abuse has been one of the top issues, identified by our Community Safety Task Force together with initiatives aimed at reducing underage consumption of alcohol, such as the Social Host Ordinance. Prior Lake has been a leader in attempting to control alcohol procurement, possession and use www. cityofpriorlake. com ~~ <•€~t.~€:`~c ~~~~~~<t<~~~~~~~~~~~,.~€~t€,;€~z~~>:€~t_~}~~?~,~~;~~`~`~~z~~~Q~c:~ Fax 952.447.4245 by minors, which includes the DARE program in our local schools. Compliance checks are one part of our efforts to avoid sales to minors. The compliance checks themselves serve two purposes: enforcement and education. Studies have shown that in communities where there is little or no enforcement, individuals who are minors or who do not look 21 can buy alcohol without showing identification in 45 - 50 % of the attempted purchases. By contrast, two studies (from the 1990s) found that after compliance checks were conducted, sales to underage patrons dropped from 60 - 80% to 25 - 30%. In Concord, New Hampshire, sales to youth decreased from 28% to 10% after quarterly compliance checks. In Minnesota, sales to youth were reduced immediately by 17% in establishments that were checked. A national survey shows that 66% of adults favor such checks. It is clear that compliance checks work. What is not clear is the optimum number of checks per year that should be made. The Scott County Sheriff's office and each of the cities of Savage, Shakopee, and Jordan report doing two compliance checks at each licensed premise. The City of New Prague is currently doing one check at each licensed establishment. In Dakota County in 2008, seven communities checked each establishment once a year, three communities twice a year with one checking three times and another zero. The Council has asked how many compliance checks are appropriate yearly. According to the U of MN Alcohol Epidemiology Program, "compliance checks should be done frequently and on an unscheduled basis. Cities that conduct at least two (2) compliance checks per year for over two years report illegal alcohol purchase rates under 20%." Compliance checks should be done for all license holders and not just a sample. There are other implications that must be considered as well. The first of which is determining if the Police Department can perform additional compliance checks in the reality of mandatory furloughs and currently having one officer less than the authorized complement. A second consideration is how such increased checks would be viewed by the license holders or anyone considering locating an alcohol-related business in Prior Lake as "over the top" compared with most other cities. The Community Safety Advisory Committee was asked for their recommendation regarding increased compliance checks and it recommends that we focus on a broad-based approach to underage access to alcohol rather than focusing too much on a single enforcement tool such as compliance checks. Both the Police Department and the Community Safety Advisory Committee agree that the present number of checks is appropriate and is .complementary to our multi- faceted efforts to obtain voluntary compliance from alcohol licensees to reduce alcohol sales to underage youth. M: t {:}t tiC:a.t ~'~~endt~ ltc;~3c~~TS 2{}l{}';~J21G141.:iq~~~~r(_s,zp~ ~r~cc: (:'lacy-Ls.t~~C' FINANCIAL The Police Department could increase the number of inspections per year from IMPACT: two to four. The additional cost would be about $2,000 or $120 per license. The more significant constraint to this proposal is establishing the necessary time to get the work scheduled and done. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct that the Police Department begin conducting four unscheduled liquor license compliance checks beginning in 2011 and prepare the analysis for funding such action. 2. Direct that the Police Department begin conducting three unscheduled liquor license compliance checks beginning in 2011 and prepare the analysis for funding such action. 3. Take no action and leave the compliance checks and fees as they are. RECOMMENDED Alternative #3. MOTION: ?~~: € t)(:~f;Ii ;^,<<>~nda 7e~}~~ats=:~€?IO',{~27.61{? L,igz3~~r C,;t?ttt(iance C'i~~cks,L~€)C