CR 97-215 1998 Liquor License Renewal for MT Bears:...
;
„~
November 25, 1997
Council Report 97-215
1998 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL FOR M.T. BEARS
Staff recommends approval of the following motion: Move to approve Resolution
97-117, denvina M.T. Bears' Liauor License Renewal,
Adoption of this motion will result in M.T. Bears not having a liquor license in
1998.
Overview
Because of the violations, including a new, recent one, and other problems and
complaints detailed in Captain Liddy's memo, staff is recommending that Council
review all the issues at this time and, rather than revoke the license held by M.T.
Bears in the near future, act at this time by denying renewal.
Primary Issues to Consider
• What is the recommendation of the Hopkins Police Department
^ What is the alleged violation
• What is the Liquor License Violation Policy
^ Has the Licensee been notified
Sunportina Documents
^ Memo from Captain Liddy, Hopkins Police Department
^ Copy of the Liquor Licerise Violation Policy
^ Full Application is available in the City Clerk's office
erry O maier, City Clerk
Council Report
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider
^ What is the recommendation of the Hopkins Police Department
The attached memo suggests several reasons for the Hopkins Police Department's
recommendation to deny the license.
^ What is the alleged violation
In May of 1996, a bartender of M.T. Bears pled guilty to selling alcohol to a person
who was under age. In August of 1996, minors were again served. These two
violations were within eighteen months of one another. In October of this year
Hopkins Police Officers entered after closing hours and found employees
consuming alcohol after closing time. While this is not a violation of State Statues,
it is a violation of City Ordinance Section 1205.09.
^ What is the Liquor License Violation Policy
The Liquor License Violation Policy identifies a third occurrence as a violation that
occurred within 30 calendar months of the second violation. The policy sets
several examples of violations and the penalties to assess. The penalties for a third
violation include ten successive days of suspension to revocation. This is not a
revocation of the license, so the Council does not need a conviction of the third
violation to deny the license. If the license is renewed at this time, the Council will
be acting on the third violation and imposing penalties, which may include
revocation in the very near future.
^ Has the Licensee been notified
Mr. Mark Meiser was notified by certified mail. Copies of the Captain's memo, this
report and the policy were included.
Alternatives
1. Deny the license renewal
2. Approve the license renewal and act on the violation at a later date
3. Continue for further information
Staff recommends alternative number one.
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 97-117
DENYING M.T. BEAR'S LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL
WHEREAS, M.T. Bears received a 5500 fine for a liquor law violation in May,
1996, and;
WHEREAS, M.T. Bears received a five day suspension for a liquor law
violation in August, 1996, and;
WHEREAS, there are criminal charges pending against several employees for
consuming alcoholic beverages after closing hours, and;
WHEREAS, the Hopkins Police Department has conducted several
discussions with the licensee regarding the violations and the responsibility of
management to properly train its employees, and;
WHEREAS, there have been numerous complaints by residents of
neighboring apartments concerning the patrons of M.T. Bears behaving in
disturbing and disruptive ways, and;
WHEREAS, the Hopkins Police Department has been called several times to
deal with criminal acts taking place in the parking lot,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that in view if the findings, the City Council
of the City of Hopkins denies renewal of the on-sale liquor license for M.T. Bears.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this day of, 1997.
By
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Memorandum
To: Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
Copy: Chief Earl Johnson
Jim Genellie, Asst City Manager
Steve Mielke, City Manager
From: Captain Jim Liddy
Date: 11 /24/97
Subject: Liquor License Renewal Application - M.T. Bears
Since the last liquor license renewal process in November of
1996, the following issues of concern regarding M.T. Sears have
taken place.
* received a $500 fine for an incident which occurred in 1996
* received a 5 day license suspension for another incident
occurring in 1996
* 2 reports of altercations during which bouncers were
assaulted {no charges filed)
* Criminal charges pending against several employees for
consuming alcoholic beverages in the bar area after closing
hours. - This incident occurred in October of 1997 and is
the 3rd vio.~ation of liquor ordinance provisions within 16
months. This incident has been referred to the City Manager
for civil action against the license holder.
Civil action against the license for this offense could
result in revocation of the license.
Since this establishment opened (originally under the name
BW3) several discussions have been held with the license
holder regarding the violations and the responsibility of
management to properly train its employees.
There have also been numerous complaints by residents of
neighboring apartments. These complaints have been concerning
patrons of M.T. Bears relieving themselves in the parking
lot, loud disturbing noise from patrons and vehicles,
patrons of MT bears parking in the apartment complex parking
area, etc.
The department is also aware that the present owner is
desirous of bringing new partners into the business. This
would probably necessitate a new liquor license application
and investigation of these participants.
Based upon all of the above information, particularly
regarding the pending action, the police department does not
believe that approving the renewal application would be
appropriate at this time.
Policy 4-B
Liquor Law Violations
I. PURPOSE
1.01 It is the intent of this policy to inform the public and business community in the City of
Hopkins that henceforth all criminal violations of liquor laws and ordinances will result in
automatic administrative action. Nothing in this policy concerning the administrative
procedures that will be followed in the event of criminal violations of liquor laws and
ordinances shall detract from the Council's authority to impose sanctions for violations of
other criminal laws occurring on the premises of licensees or for complaints of
non-criminal conduct.
2. PROCEDURE
2.01 In the event of any reports by the Hopkins Police Department of violations of the laws of
the State of Minnesota or the ordinances of the City of Hopkins relating to alcoholic
beverages, the administration is directed to take the following action:
1. Notify the Council of the report.
2. Monitor the Criminal case resulting from the report.
3. If the criminal case is dismissed or results in an acquittal or if the administration
otherwise finds the evidence of the violation unreliable, the Council shall be so
informed. The Council, at that time, shall decide whether to dismiss the matter or
proceed.
4. If the criminal case results in a conviction or payment of the court cost or if the
administration otherwise finds the evidence reliable, the City Manager shall meet with
the licensee and invite the licensee to sign a conditional admission and waiver of
hearing that includes a proposed sanction.
5. If the conditional admission is signed, it shall be presented to the Council for approval
or other action.
6. If the conditional admission is not signed, the licensee shall be provided notice of a
suspension/revocation hearing and the matter shall be set down on the Council agenda
for hearing.
7. The hearing will be in accord with the Administrative Procedure Act. Minn. Stat.
14.57 to 14.70. The hearing shall be recorded, the City Manager shall present the
evidence establishing the violation, and the licensee shall have the right to
cross-examine witnesses, present evidence, and make a statement to the Council. The
council will issue written findings on whether a violation occurred.
Legislative Policy Manual -- Chapter 4-B
Page 1
3. PRESUIVIl'TIVE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
3.01 The following list of presumptive penalties be assessed as deemed necessary:
Type of Violation 1st Violation 2nd Violation 3rd Violation
1) Commission of a 10 - 25 consecutive Revocation N/A
felony related to the days of suspension
licensed activi
2) Sale of alcoholic 10 - 25 consecutive Revocation N/A
beverages while days of suspension
license is under
' sus ension.
3) Sale of alcoholic 0 - 5 consecutive 6 - 15 consecutive Revocation
beverages to under age days of suspension. days of suspension.
erson.
4) Sale of alcoholic 0 - 5 consecutive 6 - 15 consecutive 16 consecutive days
beverage to days of suspension. days of suspension. of suspension to
intoxicated erson. Revocation.
5) Sale of alcoholic 0 - 2 consecutive 3 - 9 consecutive 10 consecutive days
beverages after hours. days of suspensiop. days of suspension. of suspension to
Revocation.
6) Illegal gambling on 0 - 3 consecutive 4 - 9 consecutive 10 consecutive days
premises. days of suspension. days of suspension. of suspension to
Revocation.
7) Permit person to leave 0 - 2 consecutive 3 - 5 consecutive 6 - 10 consecutive
premises with days of suspension. days of suspension. days of suspension to
alcoholic bevera e. Revocation.
8) Violations of City 0 - 5 consecutive 6 - 15 consecutive 16 consecutive days
Ordinances pertaining days of suspension. days of suspension. of suspension to
to fire or building or Revocation.
health codes.
3.02 Computation of time. For the purpose of determining the number of occurrences of
violations, the council shall consider a violation as a second occurrence if it occurred
within 18 calendar months of the first violation; and shall consider a violation as a third
occurrence if it occurred within 30 calendar months of the second violation.
3.03 Other penalties. Nothing in this section shall restrict or limit the authority of the council
to suspend up to 60 days, revoke the license, assess a civil fine not to exceed $2,000, to
impose conditions or take any adverse action in accordance with law, provided that the
license holder has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing.
Established: 5/5/87
Revised: 2/7/89
Legislative Policy Manual -- Chapter 4-B 2