CR 95-108 Temporary 3.2 License For The Jaycees
June 20, 1995
...
Council Report 95-108
e
TEMPORARY 3.2 BEER LICENSE FOR THE JAYCEES
Proposed Action
Staff recommends that the Council approve the following motion: Move that the Hopkins City Council
approve temporary 3.2 beer licenses for the Hopkins Jaycees for the period of July 7 and 8 and for the period
of July 14 through July 16 with the restriction that no beer shall be sold in more than one location at the same
time.
Adoption oftrus motion will allow the Jaycees to sell beer during the Raspberry Festival.
Overview
The Hopkins Jaycees have submitted applications for two temporary 3.2 beer licenses for the weekends of the
Raspberry Festival. Current state law limits the number of temporary licenses that a city can issue to any
organization to three a year. These licenses will be the second and third issued to the Jaycees in 1995.
Primary Issues to Consider
. · Can a single license cover multiple locations?
The Jaycees have requested that their temporary license for the period of July 14 through 16 extend to
several different locations. The City Attorney has determined that a single license can be used in more
than one location but not simultaneously. For example, the license would allow beer to be sold in one
location from 4 to 6 p.m. and a different location from 7 to 11 p.m. but not in two locations from 4 to
6 p.m.
· Has the police department reviewed these applications?
The police department has reviewed the applications and is recommending approval. They do have a
concern about a report that minors were able to purchase beer. The Jaycees are being asked to address
this issue.
Supportine Information
· Memorandum from the City Attorney.
· Memorandum from the police captain.
t /3L~
('67-70) U " .
~~s A. Genellie
~lty Clerk
.
.
.
c
T Y
o F
HOP K
N S
MEMO
Date: June 15, 1995
TO: James Genellie
From: Jerre Miller
He: Temporary Liquor License
In connection with your June 9 Memorandum concerning the Jaycees
Application for a 3.2 liquor license, a review of applicable
statutes reveal the following:
M. S. 340A. 403 says that a city may issue a temporary on -sale
license to a club and set the terms surrounding the temporary use
of it. This pertains to the issuance of a 3.2 percent malt liquor
license only.
M. S. 340A.404 allows a city to issue an on-sale intoxicating
liquor license to a club for not more than three consecutive days.
M. S. 340A.4l0 refers to general liquor license restrictions and
says that a city may not issue more than three temporary licenses
for the sale of alcoholic beverages to anyone organization for
more than one location within a 12 month period and this
restriction applies to the language of M.S. 340A.403 referred to
above.
In reading all three statutes pertaining to the issuance of
temporary licenses for 3.2 beer, I think M.S. 340A.4l0 applies
when it says a city cannot issue more than three licenses for the
sale of alcoholic beverages to anyone organization within a year
or for anyone location. You will note that the various statutes
use the terms "3.2 percent malt liquor", "intoxicating liquor" and
c:\file\hopkins\jg
1
1010 First Street South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Phone: 612-935-8474 Fax: 612-935-1834
An Equal Opportunity Employer
.
.
.
"alcoholic beverages". There is obviously a distinction between
3.2 malt liquor and all other liquor, "intoxicating liquors" but it
is unclear whether the term "alcoholic beverages" pertains to all
such references. If it does, the specific restriction to the
issuance of three licenses within a 12 month period for anyone
location must be followed.
In reading the Application, it looks like the applicant seeks a
license for use in a tent on July 14, 15 and 16. The hours are
blank on the form. It refers to the Town & Country Dodge site on
July 15 and two corners on Mainstreet on July 16.
This Application reflects a three day issuance which complies with
the statute but the question is whether the location can be
adjusted by having a day time sales location at Town & Country
Dodge and an evening location in the tent. The language in the
statute "or for anyone location" can be interpreted to mean at the
same time. Thus, if a day time sale is located in one City spot
and then a night time sale is located in another, this may not do
injury to the statutory language. However, simultaneous locations
at 8th and Mainstreet and 14th and Mainstreet during the day on
July 16 would clearly violate the language.
Obviously, the Application is light on facts and should be more
specifically filled in. If I have interpreted their intention
correctly, as long as they accomplish this within the three day
...-.--..,
period and are at only one location att one time, I think they have
technically complied with the.. s.tatute.
,{L/' (
I
I
'.
c:\file\hopkins\jg
2
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
June 20, 1995
__ TO:
Jim Genellie
FROM: Jim Liddy
SUBJECT: 3.2 beer License Request for Raspberry Festival Tent Dances
The police department makes a qualified recommendation for the approval
of the 3.2 beer license for the Jaycees Raspberry Festival tent dances.
We do have some concerns about how closely persons are being checked for
ID before being served beer. The concerns are based on the following:
On May 21st, the Minnetonka Police responded to a misdemeanor assault
call in their city. During the investigation, they learned from the
suspects, all under the age of 21, that they (the suspects) had been at
the Mainstreet Days tent dance and had been drinking beer there. These
individuals stated that they purchased the beer themselves and that none
of the servers checked to see if their hands had been stamped by the
people cheCking IDs. The stamp on the hand indicates to the servers that
the person's identification has been checked and verified that the person
is of legal drinking age. Absence of a stamp on the hand indicates either
that the person is under 21 or does not anticipate purchasing beer.
We are not able to confirm that the suspects actually were served beer at
. the tent dance but there would not have been a reason for them to falsify
this information. If it is true, we do not know who served them.
A letter will be sent to the Jaycees detailing the problem demanding that
they address this apparent flaw in their system. Personal contact will
also be made with them.
Should this or similar problems recur, the police department will
probably recommend denial of future requests by the Jaycees for this
type of license.
.