HomeMy WebLinkAbout8B Appeal of MGM Liquor4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake. MN 55372
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 7, 2011
AGENDA #: 8B
PREPARED BY: Frank Boyle, City Manager
PRESENTED BY: Frank Boyles
AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Saga Hills Wine and Spirits LLC dba
Prior Lake MGM Liquor
DISCUSSION: Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Council to conduct a public hearing
to consider whether it wishes to modify the presumptive penalty provided by Prior
Lake City Code and as recommended by the Police Chief and City Manager for a
first liquor sale violation in a 36 -month period.
History
Prior Lake City Code Section 301 regulates the sale of liquor in Prior Lake pursu-
ant to Minnesota Statutory requirements. The ordinance provides for both crimi-
nal and civil penalties. For example, if a server or clerk in a licensed establish-
ment sells to an underage person, they are subject to criminal penalties as deter-
mined by the District Court.
Prior Lake City Code 301.1700 also provides for civil violations and penalties
which are applicable for the license holder. Specifically, Section 301.1704 states,
"Each license issued hereunder shall be subject to suspension or revocation and /or
imposition of a civil fine of up to Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for violation of
any provisions of this Section or the laws of the State of Minnesota as follows:
Presumptive Civil Penalties; Purpose. The purpose of this subsection is to estab-
lish a standard by which the City Council determines the length of license suspen-
sion, the propriety of revocations, and the amount of fines, and shall apply to all
premises licensed under this Section. These penalties are presumed to be appropri-
ate for every case; however, the Council may deviate in an individual case where the
Council finds that there exist substantial reasons making it more appropriate to de-
viate, such as, but not limited to, a licensee's efforts in combination with the State or
City to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors."
This section goes on to say that if the Council elects to deviate from the presumptive
penalties, it must have written findings and rationale to do so.
The presumptive civil penalty for a first violation of, "sale of alcoholic beverages to a
minor" within a 36 -month period is a three -day suspension of the license. Since the
inception of this ordinance, the Police Chief has allowed the licensee to select the
three days of suspension, whether contiguous or not.
Under the provisions of the ordinance a licensee may appeal a civil penalty by
providing written notice within ten days of receipt of the City Manager's notice of vio-
lation. Mr. Peterson, the owner, has provided such written notice within the allotted
time frame.
Current Circumstances
In 2010, a liquor license was issued to Saga Hill Wine and Spirits LLC for Prior
Lake MGM Liquors. On October 13, 2010, an MGM employee sold alcohol to an
underage purchaser as part of the City's annual compliance check program. The
clerk failed to ask the purchaser for identification. The clerk is no longer em-
ployed at MGM.
The clerk pled guilty to the charge, was convicted and paid a criminal fee of $385.
On January 27, 2011 1 sent a letter to Saga Hill Wine and Spirits LLC advising
them of the presumptive civil penalty under the Prior Lake City Code and their
right to request and appeal within ten days of the notice. They responded on Feb-
ruary 4, 2011.
Saga Hill Wine and Spirits LLC has elected to appeal the civil penalty. Attached is
a memo and attachments dated February 24, 2011 articulating their position re-
garding the proposed civil penalty.
Conclusion
The City Council should conduct the appeal hearing in accordance with the City
Code and request of the licensee, and determine if new information is put forward
with respect to this matter.
ISSUES: The City Code provides "the Council may deviate in an individual case where the
Council finds that there are substantial reasons making it more appropriate to de-
viate, such as, but not limited to, a licensees efforts in combination with the State
or City to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors."
From my conversation with Mr. Peterson I know he has been working with Police
Sergeant Stanger to prevent the same or similar event in the future by providing
training to liquor clerk employees. There is nothing in the record of the sale that
suggests extenuating circumstances in this case or herculean efforts to work with
the State or City to prevent future incidents.
Mr. Peterson suggests there should be penalty reductions for licensees who follow
best practices. In my opinion licensees who claim they have instituted "best prac-
tices" measures to prevent against liquor license violations and then are convicted
for a liquor license violation should receive a higher rather than lower penalty
since the violation demonstrates the greater effort has actually result in equal or
less ability for the licensee to comply with the law.
Mr. Peterson also argues that the City's treatment of the Chamber of Commerce
and its sale of liquor to a minor and the City's failure to suspend the Chamber's
temporary license is precedence for not suspending Prior Lake MGM's license in
this situation.
The staff certainly agrees with Mr. Peterson's statement that a three -day suspen-
sion is a "substantial loss of income for the company, loss of income for our off -
work employees and an inconvenience to our customers." It is for this reason that
the staff has adopted a practice of allowing the licensee to pick the three days for
suspension which need not be consecutive. On the other hand there is nothing
presently on the record regarding this sale that is at all different from previous in-
stances which we have addressed using the presumptive penalty provided for in
the ordinance.
Prior Lake City Code Section 301.1704 sets out the rationale for the presumptive
penalties:
(1) Presumptive Civil Penalties; Purpose. The purpose of tis subsection is to
establish a standard by which the City Council determines the length of li-
cense suspension, the propriety of revocation, and the amount of fines,
and shall apply to all premises licensed under this Section. These penal-
ties are presumed to be appropriate for every case....
Section 301.1704 (2) is the matrix for determining the presumptive penalty and is
attached as part of this agenda report. One of the reasons for adopting presump-
tive penalties is to assure that all licensees are treated similarly, unless "substan-
tial" reasons exist to deviate.
FINANCIAL There is a cost for compliance including the license check involving an officer and
IMPACT: a minor, Court preparation, Court appearance, notification of this hearing, prepa-
ration of this report and participation in the hearing. These costs are intended to
be reimbursed by license fees charged to each licensee.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Conduct the public hearing. If no new substantive information is provided,
adopt the attached resolution with findings of fact affirming and imposing the
presumptive penalties as set forth in the ordinance and recommended by the
Police Chief and City Manager.
2. Conduct the public hearing. If in the City Council's opinion new substantive
information is provided which justifies varying from the presumptive penalties
in the ordinance, the City Council should enumerate its findings and direct the
staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact.
RECOMMENDED As determined by the City Council.
MOTION:
L ,PR10 4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RESOLUTION 11 -xxx
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PRESUMPTIVE CIVIL PENALTIES FOR SAGA HILLS WINE AND
SPIRITS DBA PRIOR LAKE MGM LIQUORS
Motion By:
Second By:
WHEREAS, Prior Lake City Code Section 301 provides for criminal and civil penalties for violation of State
Statute and City Code; and
WHEREAS, On October 13, 2010, an employee at Prior Lake MGM Liquors sold liquor to a minor as part
of the City's annual liquor compliance check program without requesting identification; and
WHEREAS, The clerk pled guilty to a misdemeanor and received a Court- imposed $385 fine; and
WHEREAS, The clerk no longer works at Prior Lake MGM Liquors; and
WHEREAS, Following the clerk's conviction, the City Manager provided written notice to the license hold-
er, Mr. and Mrs. Jim Peterson, advising them that pursuant to City Code Section 301.1704 (2)
the civil penalty (minimum) for the first time occurrence of "sale of alcoholic beverages to an
underage person is a three -day suspension; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to City Code Section 301.1800 the license holder filed a timely appeal of the penalty
imposed and requested a hearing before the City Council; and
WHEREAS, The license holder requested the City Council reduce or eliminate the presumptive civil penal-
ty prescribed in the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, The hearing was conducted on Monday, March 7, 2011 at which time testimony was entered
into the record and all persons requesting an opportunity to be heard where permitted to ad-
dress the City Council on the licensee's appeal of the civil penalty recommended because an
employee of the licensee was convicted of a misdemeanor for the sale of an alcoholic bever-
age to an underage person; and
WHEREAS The hearing was duly closed on the date set forth above.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA
as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The City Council finds that the sale of alcoholic beverages to an underage person is a serious breach of
the public trust.
3. The City Council finds that the use and consumption of alcoholic beverages by underage persons poses
a risk to and threatens the public welfare and safety.
4. The City Council finds that a Scott County court convicted an employee of Saga Hills Wine and Spirits
LLC dba Prior Lake MGM Liquors of a misdemeanor for the sale of an alcoholic beverage to an underage
person.
a://finance1/teams /am /October 4 2010 /March 7 2011/03 07 11 MGM Liquor Appeal of Penal .doc
5. The City Council finds that Prior Lake City Code Section 301.1701 provides that "The license holder shall
be responsible for the conduct of its agents or employees while on the licensed premises."
6. After listening to the evidence presented at the public hearing the Council finds there is no basis for vary-
ing from the presumptive penalties set forth in Section 301.1704 (2) of the Prior Lake City Code.
7. The staff is directed to work with Saga Hills Wine and Spirits LLC dba MGM Liquors to schedule three
days suspension before July 1, 2011.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF MARCH 2011.
YES NO
M ser
M ser
Erickson
Erickson
Hedberg
Hedber
Keeney
Keene
Soukup
Souku
Frank Boyles, City Manager
htt�: / /finance1 /teams /am /October 4 2010 /March 7.2011/03 0711 MGM Liquor Appeal of Penal!y.docM:kGounG'IkResolutionsk2011kO3 07 V MGM Liquor Appeal of
Penalty.des 2
February 25, 2011
Prior Lake Mayor and Council Members
Re: MGM Liquor Sale Violation
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
My name is Jim Peterson and I, together with my wife, Sandra, own Saga Hills Wine and Spirits, LLC, the
licensee for the Prior Lake MGM franchise since April 2010. The purpose of this letter is to request that
the Council not impose the proposed penalty against our operating license.
Our store received its license in 2007 while it was owned by MGM corporate. We obtained the franchise
in 2010 at which time the license was transferred to us. We also operate an MGM store in Burnsville. As
you likely know, on October 13, 2010, an MGM employee sold alcohol to an undercover purchaser
working on behalf of the Prior Lake Police Department. The employee, who failed to ask the purchaser
for identification, has pleaded guilty to the criminal charges and is no longer an MGM employee.
Pursuant to Prior Lake's ordinances, the proposed civil penalty against MGM is suspension of our license
for three (3) days.
Naturally, any licensee in our position would want the most lenient penalty possible. In our case, a
three -day suspension would mean a substantial loss of income for the company, loss of income for our
off -work employees and inconvenience to our customers. While our former employee paid a deserved
fine of $385, the sanction to us and to our employees will be many times that amount. Our request,
however, is not merely for leniency, but for consideration of a different approach to liquor license
violations in Prior Lake.
The approach we are suggesting is already in place in many other cities and is frequently called a "best
practices" model. The intent of this approach is not merely to punish violations but to improve
compliance by creating an incentive for licensees to go beyond basic employee training. In addition, this
approach recognizes that despite a licensee's best efforts, a single employee — often a young, part -time
worker — can fail to follow proper procedure and such a singular failure should not result in an
excessively punitive sanction against the licensee and other innocent actors.
I have attached with this letter copies of the alcohol ordinances in place for Burnsville, Savage and
Shakopee. Burnsville and Savage specifically have adopted the Best Practices model and have structured
their licensee requirements and penalties accordingly. While Shakopee's ordinance does not specifically
follow the model, it's initial penalty establishes a two -tier system which provides additional leniency to a
first -time violator. I would also note that the penalties imposed by each of these neighboring cities are
substantially less than the presumptive penalties under the Prior Lake ordinance.
Owning an MGM store in Burnsville, I am familiar with that city's Best Practices ordinance and
compliance requirements. I have spoken with Burnsville employees who implement the ordinance and
they tell me violations have substantially decreased since the Best Practice policy was implemented. I
don't believe there is any evidence that the circumstances in Prior Lake are so much worse than in other
cities that harsher penalties are necessary. Clearly, not all cities need to have the same penalty and Prior
Lake need not blindly follow another city's example. Our position, however, is that these cities and
others have considered how best to address alcohol sales to minors and have determined that just
punishing the licensee is not the most effective practice.
We do, however, want you to understand that we take our responsibility regarding these issues very
seriously. MGM corporate has policies we are required to follow and training we are required to
participate in. In addition, we conduct additional training at our Burnsville store pursuant to that city's
Best Practices requirements and, although we are not required to do so in Prior Lake, our employees in
the Prior Lake store receive the same additional training. I have since this incident been in contact with
the Prior Lake Police Department regarding other actions we might take. Our stores have been subject
to compliance checks on numerous occasions and have passed each time, save the incident in Prior
Lake. In fact, the Prior Lake employee himself was subject to a previous compliance check and acted
properly on that occasion.
Our specific request is that the Council not impose the three -day suspension but rather exercise its
discretion to impose a penalty in line with the best practices model and impose only a fine. In fact, we
ask and urge the Council and the Police Department to consider working with all Prior Lake licensees to
establish a new ordinance that would incorporate the best practices model. Until such a revised
ordinance could be considered and adopted, the existing ordinance gives the Council all the discretion it
needs to impose sanctions that reflect a best practices version. In fact, the Council has as recently as last
summer exercised its discretion when imposing sanctions. As most of you know, in 2009 the Prior Lake
Chamber of Commerce violated a temporary liquor license by selling alcohol to a minor. Despite that
violation, however, the Council in July 2010 granted the Chamber another temporary license without
requiring the Chamber to forego three days of liquor sales for its events. My point is not to ask that the
Chamber be punished further. Rather, my point is that the Council has discretion regarding these type of
violations. I am, therefore, asking that the Council review the information I have provided, impose a fine
rather than the presumptive sanction and consider adopting the Best Practices model.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions or need more information, please don't
hesitate to ask.
Sincerely,
Jim Peterson
2/17/2011
Pemits & Licenses
Liquor Licensing
Tobacco Licensing
Hest Practices Program
Rental Unit Licensing
Ordinances
FAQs
Request Services
or report an issue.
Burnsville, MN - Official Website - Liquo...
Best Practices Alcohol
The City institutes a Best Practices Alcohol Compliance Program. The Best Practices Program is a
joint effort by the City of Bumsville, health professionals, school officials, businesses, and alcohol
vendors to eliminate illegal sales of alcohol to youth. It is a voluntary program offered to liquor license
holders in the city. The program offers incentives to the licensees to undertake certain practices
believed to be helpful in avoiding sales to minors.
Best Practices Application
Benefits of Participation
Any vendor participating in the Best Practices Program will receive two benefits. The first is the
availability of regularly scheduled, city - provided training at no cost. The training will not be offered to
vendors who do not participate. Training of employees is usually required by liquor license insurance
Sin to receive companies or results in premium discounts.
agendas, rrinutes, The second benefit is a reduction in penalties if a violation occurs. Participa vendors will be given
news, etc. p � g g
the advantage of a different set of penalties. The following grid shows penalties counted over a two -
year period.
The following violations are subject to civil penalties outlined on the grid:
sales to minors
failure of an underage compliance check
Violation
Best Practices Business
Non Best Practices Business
1st Violation
500 fine
1000 fine and
Req.
2.
3 day suspension of license
2 nd Violation
750 fine and
1500 fine and
within 2 yrs
day suspension of license
6 day suspension of license
3 Violation
1000 fine and
2000 fine and
within 2 yrs
day suspension of license
9 day suspension of license
Best Practices review panel
Violation
Revocation*
Revocation"
r h
within 2 yrs
Whimum revocation period W11 be one year from the revocation date
Participation
The licensee will be given the opportunity to participate in the program at the time a license and then
annually at the time of license renewal. The licensee will indicate in writing their intent to participate.
The first four items in the grid are mandatory. The licensee must choose items from the list of
electives to equal a total of 60 points. The City will conduct spot checks of participants to determine
compliance.
www.ci.burnsville .mn.us /index.aspx ?NID... 112
Search Government J Residents I Business I About Burnsville
You are here: Home > Residents > All Departments > Licensing > Liquor Licensing
Item
Req.
?.
Permit inspections of records to ensure criteria are being met
Req.
2.
M inimum of 75% of all alcohol selling employees trained by Burnsville Police
Department
www.ci.burnsville .mn.us /index.aspx ?NID... 112
Search Government J Residents I Business I About Burnsville
You are here: Home > Residents > All Departments > Licensing > Liquor Licensing
.12/17/2 3 011 Burnsville, MN - Official Website - Liquo...
Req.
3.
Internal program in place for on -going training of new & current alcohol selling
employees.
Req.
4.
Policy requiring identification checks for anyone appearing to be 40 or under
Points
Electives
20
5.
Participation in TIPS, SALES or similar (city approved) training program - 75% of alcohol
serving employees certified
10
6.
Internal employee reward and recognition program (program to reward any employee wh
catches any underage customer attempting to purchase alcohol)
10
7.
Approved internal compliance check program
10
8.
Automated identification card scanner system (cannot do both eight and nine)
20
9. jAutomated
identification card scanner system integrated into register system (cannot do
oth eight and nine)
10
10.
Pre - arrangement to meet immediately on violations (meet with Police Dept and City staff
mmediately instead of waiting for criminal court proceedings)
10
11.
Policy requiring Identification checks for every alcohol transaction regardless of apparent
ge
10
12.
Pre - agreement to work with Police on preventing secondary alcohol sales
10
J3.
Minimum age of 21 for employees selling alcohol products
100 Civic Center Parkway
Burnsville, MN 553371952- 895 -44001 Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm
Copyright Notices I Powered by CivicPlus I Accessibility
www.ci.burnsville .mn.us /index.aspx ?NID... 2/2
o:c
Liquor Control 29
(E) The licensee suffered or permitted illegal acts upon the licensed premises or on property owned or
controlled by the licensee adjacent to the licensed premises, unrelated to the sale of beer, wine or liquor;
(F) The licensee had knowledge of illegal acts upon or attributable to the licensed premises, but failed
to report the same to the police; or
(G) Violation of any of the terms of this subchapter and §§ 111.060 and 111.061.
(Prior Code, § 3 -2 -27) (Ord. 533, passed 8 -6 -2001; Ord. 626, passed 6 -4 -2007) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 111.042 PENALTIES.
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish a standard by which the City Council
determines the amount of fine, the length of license suspensions and the propriety of revocations, and shall
apply to all on -sale and off -sale licensed premises. These penalties are presumed to be appropriate for every
case provided however, the Council may deviate in an individual case where the Council finds that the
totality of the circumstances justify a different penalty. When deviating from these standards the Council
shall provide written findings that support the penalty selected.
(B) Definition. Best Practices Business means a licensee that is certified in the City's Server
Awareness Program. To be certified a licensee's managers and or owners shall have attended the Server
Awareness Program and at all times have provided the Server Awareness Program training to no less than
75% of its employees A licensee shall document the training its provides to its employees and have these
records available for review upon request by the Savage Police Department.
(C) Penalties for Violations. Penalties for convictions or violations must be presumed as follows
(unless specified, numbers below indicate consecutive days' suspension):
(1) Revocation on First Violation. The following violations require revocation of the license on
the first violation:
(a) Commission of a felony related to the licensed activity.
(b) Sale of alcoholic beverages while license is under suspension.
(c) Sale of intoxicating liquor where only license is for 3.2 percent malt liquor.
(2) Underage Sales and Compliance Check Failures. The penalties set forth below apply to the
following violations:
(a) Licensee failure of an underage compliance check.
(b) Sale of alcoholic beverages to under age person.
30 Savage - Business Regulations
Violation
Best Practic Busi ness
Non -Be Practices Business
`First violation
$500.40 fine.
$1,000.00 fine and mandatory
- -- _.
3 -day j
-
train _—
_ Second
zz violation within $750.00 fine and mandatory training. $1,500.00 fine and 2 day consecutive
:sus ension of license.
W years p
Third violation = $1,000.00 fine, 2 day consecutive $2,000.00 fine and 7 day consecutive
suspension of license and best practices`
=; within 2 years ; suspension of license.
revie pane
Fourth violation:
'
$1,500.00 fine, 7 day onsecutive
y
suspension of license, and best practices;
$2,000.00 fine and 12 day consecutive
within 2 years
review pan el_---___---.------.__.__.___... .....__...._. ._.__.,.._____.__.
suspension of license.
=Fifth violation
$2,000 fine and revocation. (Minimum '
$2,000.00 fine and revocation.
=1
2
revocation period will be 1 year starting :{Minimum
revocation period will be 1
7 within years ;
from the revocation date.) i
year from the revocation date)
(3) Penalties for Other Violations. The penalties set forth below apply to violations not
contained in subsections (C) 1 and (C) 2 of this section. The Council may in its discretion impose a
civil fine of $500.00 in lieu of a suspension on the first appearance for violation numbers 1, 2, 3, 6 and
7.
Appearance
T e O f Violation
1st
2nd 3rd 4th
------ _-- _____.__.____- ....
- -- _.
3 -day j
__._.._._ -- - -___. ____, .._- ---- _.__ -___
6 - day
I. Sale of alcoholic beverages to '
consecutive
18 consecutive
consecutive Revocatio n
Ell obviously intoxicated person.
suspensi
suspension ;
I
:._ ._.. ..
_..._...
suspen
..- --
2. After hours
3 -day 6 -day
sale of alcoholic
18 -day consecutive
consecutive consecutive ' Revocation
suspension
bbeverages.
-
suspen suspension
�13. After hours display or
2 -day 4 -day
aconsumption of alcoholic
12 -day consecutive
consecutive consecutive ;Revocation
'E bevera es. s
g
sus en suspension
suspension suspension
p , _
4 Refusal to allow city
5 -day 15 -day
inspectors or police admission to
consecutive consecutive Revocation n/a
=inspect premises.
suspension suspension
_........._....�.3 ... .... ....... .._._._._.....
wj
5. Illegal gambling on premises.
3 -day
consecutive
6 -day
consecutive
18 -day consecutive
Revocation
suspension
i
...... ......._. ......._ __
suspension
_... -
suspension 'I
-
_._....
_._.._._..
Liquor Control 31
'6. Failure to take reasonable
steps to stop person from leaving
2 -day
4 -day
12 -day consecutive
°;
consecutive i
consecutive
1
Revocation
premises with alcoholic
suspension
Fe
;beverages.
suspension
...... . ... ... . _.... ,
suspension
-- __...
.. .
17. Failure to make application for
Iicense renewal prior to license
3-day
consecutive '
6 -day
consecutive
1$ -day consecutive
--
Revocation
lex piration dat s
suspension
__...................._....,
suspension
......- ..,._... -- —
suspension
-- -- -- -
_ .............._._............_-
(D) Multiple Violations. At a licensee's first appearance before the Council, the Council must act
upon all of the violations that have been alleged in the notice sent to the licensee. The Council in that
case must consider the penalty for each violation under the first appearance column in subsection (A) of
this section. The occurrence of multiple violations is grounds for deviation from the presumed penalties
in the Council's discretion.
(E) Subsequent Violation.: Violations occurring after the notice of hearing has been mailed, but
prior to the hearing, must be treated as a separate violation and dealt with as a second appearance
before the Council, unless the city administrator and licensee agree in writing to add the violation to the
first appearance. The same procedure applies to a second, third or fourth appearance before the
Council.
(F) Subsequent Appearances. Upon a second, third or fourth appearance before the Council by the
same licensee, the Council must impose the penalty for the violation or violations giving rise to the
subsequent appearance without regard to the particular violation or violations that were the subject of
the first or prior appearance. However, the Council may consider the amount of time elapsed between
appearances as a basis for deviating from the penalty imposed by this section.
(G) Computation of Appearances. After the first appearance, a subsequent appearance by the same
licensee will be determined as follows:
(1) If the first appearance was within eighteen (18) months of the current violation, the
current appearance will be treated as a second appearance.
(2) If a licensee has appeared before the Council on two (2) previous occasions, and the
current violation occurred within thirty (30) months of the first appearance, the .current appearance will
be treated as a third appearance.
(3) If a licensee has appeared before the Council on three (3) previous occasions, and the
current violation occurred within forty eight (48) months of the first appearance, the current appearance
will be treated as a fourth appearance.
(4) Any appearance not covered by subsection (G)1, (G)2 or (G)3 of this section will be
treated as a first appearance.
(H) Other Penalties. Nothing in this section shall restrict or limit the authority of the Council to
suspend up to sixty (60) days, revoke the license, or impose a civil fine not to exceed two thousand
55.08
Subd. 2. Purchasing. It is unlawful for any:
A. Person to sell, barter, furnish, or give alcoholic beverages to a minor unless such
person is the parent or guardian of the minor, and then only for consumption in the
household of such parent or guardian.
B. Minor to purchase or attempt to purchase any alcoholic beverage.
C. Person to induce a minor to purchase or procure any alcoholic beverage.
Subd-3. Possession. It isunlawful for a minor to possess any alcoholic beverage with the intent
to consume it at a place other than the household of the minor's parent or guardian. Possession of
an alcoholic beverage by a minor at a place other than the household of the parent or guardian is
prima facie evidence of intent to consume it at a place other than the household of the parent or
guardian.
Subd. 4. Entering Licensed Premises. It is unlawful for any minor,as defined in this Chapter, to
enter licensed premises for the purpose of purchasing or consuming any alcoholic beverage. It is
not unlawful for any person who has attained the age of eighteen (18) years to enter licensed
premises for the following purposes: (1) to perform work for the establishment, including the
serving of alcoholic beverages, unless otherMse prohibited by statute; (2) to consume meals; and
(3) to attend social functions that are held in a portion of the establishment where liquor is not sold.
Itis unlawful for a licensee to permit a person. under the age of eighteen (18) years to enter licensed
premises unless attending a social event at which alcoholic beverages are not served, or in the
company of a parent or guardian. .
Subd. 5. Misrepresentation of Age. It is unlawful for a minor to misrepresent their age for the
purpose of purchasing an alcoholic beverage.
Subd. 6. Proof of AQe.. Proof of age for purchasing or consuming alcoholic beverages may be
established only by a valid driver's license, a Minnesota identification card, or, in the case of a
foreign national, by a valid passport. (Ord. 198, July 24, 1986; Ord. 226, August 27, 1987; Ord.
337, July 23, 1992)
Subd.7. Penalities. (Added, Ord. 621, March 21,2002)
A. The purpose of
this subdivision is
to establish
a uniform set of penalties
for
licensees who furnish
or sell alcoholic
beverages to
minors. The penalties for
a
first or second
incident shall be
imposed and administered by the
City
Administrator upon an
admission by the
licensee that
the licensee furnished or
sold
an alcoholic beverage
to a minor. The
penalties for
a third or fourth incident
may
only be imposed by the City Council. (Amended, Ord.634, July 18, 2002)
B. The following penalties shall be imposed if a licensee furnishes or sells alcoholic
beverages to a minor: (Amended, Ord. 634, July 18, 2002)
page revised in 2007 .
492
-5.09
ten
(10)-day
license suspension for a third incident
. 1. A
$1,000 fine and a
one . (1 ) -day license suspension for the first
incident,
provided,
however, that $500
of the fine and the one ( 1 ) -day
license
suspension
will be suspended
for one (1) year on the condition that the
licensee
has no further
incidents of furnishing or selling
alcoholic
beverages
to "minor during that one (1 ) -year period; (Amended, Ord.
634,
July 18, 2002)
(Amended, Ord. 634, July 18, 2002)
2. A $1,500 fine and a five (5) -day license suspension for a second incident
occurring within three (3) years of the date of the previous incident;
3. A $2,000 fine and a
ten
(10)-day
license suspension for a third incident
occurring within three (3)
years
of
the dates of the previous two (2)
incidents;
RESPONSIBILITY OF
LICENSEES.
Subd. 1. Proof. No
4. A $2,000 fine and a
suspension of
the license for a minimum of thirty (30)
days or a revocation of
the
license
for a fourth or subsequent incident
occurring within three (3)
years
of
the dates of the previous incidents.
(Amended, Ord. 634, July 18, 2002)
C. All multiple -day license suspensions shall run consecutively beginning at 12:01
a.m. on the first day of the suspension period and ending at midnight on the last
day of the suspension period.
D. Any person whose license to sell alcoholic beverages is revoked under this
subdivision may not apply for a new license for at least thirty (30) days after the
effective date of the revocation.
E. No suspension or revocation shall be imposed by either the City Council or the City
Administrator until
the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a
hearing in
accordance with
Section 5.02,
Subdivision 4 of this
Chapter.
SEC. 5.09.
FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF
LICENSEES.
Subd. 1. Proof. No
3.2 percent malt liquor,
wine or liquor license shall be issued
or renewed
unless and until the
applicant has provided
proof of financial responsibility imposed
by Minnesota
Statutes by filing: (Amended, Ord. 779, July 12, 2007)
A. Evidence of financial responsibility as required by State law is furnished by filing a
liability insurance policy, a certificate of such insurance or a binder for such
coverage in the form and in the amount and conditioned all as required by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.409, Subdivision 1 (1) in force and effect at the
time of filing the license application.
B. A bond of a surety company with minimum coverages as provided in
Subparagraph A of this Subdivision; or,
. page revised in 2008 493