Loading...
06-790Council File # p�- �'6 Green Sheet #�,�1//{ RESOLUTION Presented by Referred To WHEREAS, Ry Phann of Phann Liquor Inc. d/b!a Capitol Wine & Spirit, 531 Rice Street (ID# 20040000866) applied to the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection to have the following condition removed from his license: 2. The licensee shall sell no fortified beer-s or 40 oz. bottles; and VJHEREAS, the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) conducted a neighborhood notification regazding this request and the Legislative Hearing Offlcer subsequently received two letters of objection about the removal of this condition; and WHEREAS, a legislative hearing was conducted on July 25, 2005 where testimony was received from the license holder who indicated that: 1) his customers would like the option to purchase this size container of fortified beers; 2) his competitors are not circumscribed by this type of condition on their licenses; and 3) the good business citizenship he has demonstrated; and WHEREAS, testimony from the district council, a neighbor and the letters received indicated concerns about the propensity far the public consumption of this size container of malt beverage and subsequent litter generated there from; and WHEREAS, the Legislative Hearing Officer recommended a four month trial period for the removal of this condition from the license in which the license holder would document sales, and the City would track complaints of public consumption of alcohol and related nuisance behaviors, such as the dumping of this size container in the azea; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul lifted the condition from this license on a trial basis for a period of four months commencing September 23, 2005 in which sales of fortified beers and 40 ounce containers, complaints of public consumption of alcohol and related nuisance behaviors (such as loitering in the area, littering with theses bottles and paper bags, urinating in public, hazassing other businesses' customers and area pedestrians) were tracked; and WHEREAS, the Legislative Hearing Officer recommends that this condition be lifted from the license based on the excellent performance of the store during the trial period; now BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby removes this license condition. CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �(Q 06-� �a Yeas Nays Absent Benanav �/ Bostrom ` Harris r/ Helgen i / Lantry ,i Montgomery i/ Thune 1/ Adopted by Council: Date /�i� �1�1/� Adoption Certified b ouncil ec etary By: � Approved by M r: te �� � By: Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � C� `7`�v DepartrnenUoffieelwuncl: Date Mitiated: co -�,�ri, ,��� Green Sheet NO: 3032114 Contact Person 8 Phone: Deoa'hnent SentTO Person initiallDate Ma�cia Moemiond � 0 anca Z��� /lssign 1 noea D rtmenttlirector Must Be on Councii Agenda by (Date): Number Z - p� e For Routing 3 or•s E-DOCUmentRequired:N Order a nca 5 k erk Document Contact: ContaM Phone#: Total # of SignaW re Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Acdon Requesfed: Removing a license condition, per the Legislative Hearing Officer, for Ry Phann of Phann Liquor, Inc. doing business as Capital Wine & Spirit, 531 Rice Street. Recommendations: Apprrne (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts MustMswerthe Following Questions: Planning Commission 7. Has this persoNfirtn e�er worked under a contract for this departmerrt? CIB Committee Yes No Ctil Service Commission 2. Has this persoNfirtn eeer been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firtn possess a skiA not nomially possessed 6y any curtent city employee? Yes No . Explain al{ yes answers on separste sheet and attach io green sheet i Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, Wha; When, Where, Why): Advanfages If Approved: DisadvaaWgeslfApproved: DisadvanWges If NotApproved: 7ofal Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: Transaction: Funding SourGe: Activily Number. Financial hrformation: � (Explain) August 16, 200612:03 PM Page 1 oc�-��� City of Saint Paul Ciry Council Reseazch Center Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 651 266-8589 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANIDUM DATE: August 18, 2006 TO: Councilmembers 3ay Benanav, Dan Bostrom, Pat Harris, Lee Heigen, Kathy Lantry, Debbie Montgomery and David Thune CC: Trudy Moloney, Director of City Council Operations; Marcia Moermond, Policy and Research Lead /� FROM: Wyn Douglas, Council Assistant RE: 40 ounce Alcohol Containers as a It is widely understood that public consumption of alcohol and its related social, criminal and health problems damage public safety and welfare. These probiems include loitering, panhandling, violence, disorderly conduct, littering and public urination. However, the most concerning long-term threats are the personal damage of alcoholism and the propagation of a neighborhood's negative self-image. Availability of cheap, high-alcohol content beverages and normalized acceptability of their public consumption can significantly diminish the ownership, responsibility and value citizens invest in their communities. On one hand, acceptability is mediated in a social manner through community-building, citizen involvement and positive, cooperative relarionships with law enfarcement. On the other hand, availability can be directiy regulated in a manner which aims to support communities' efforts to declare certain behaviors unacceptable. Limiting access to a contributing factor of desiructive social behavior has the potential to provide citizens with a tool for building the safe and livable communities they desire. However, as is the case with many public policies, restrictions and bans are generally poor initial or stand-alone strategies. Restricting one type ofproduct cannot eliminate the problems associated with alcohol when comparable substitutes (for example, cheap pints of liquor or fortified wine) are readily available. Employed Strategies States and municipalities nationwide have implemented various solutions to the problems associated with public inebriation. In Washington, DC one ward banned the sale of single beer containers less than 70 ounces. Police in Portland, OR urged liquor stores in targeted neighborhoods to voluntarily ban malt liquor containers larger than 16 ounces. Similar restrictions based on packaging, container size, alcohol content and specific brands have been discussed or implemented in Philadelphia, Seattle, Tacoma, San Diego, New Mexico and Maryland. i . `� The most comprehensive study of efforts to curb public inebriation was done for the city of Tacoma to deteimine the effects of a ban on the sale of specific products inside a designated "Alcohol Impact Area."� These zones ate implemented by the State Liquor Control Board at the request of municipalities. Policymakers in all of these communities rightly view sale-restrictions as one component of a holistic solution founded upon community-wide efforts such as: • Community volunteer street litter clean up • Public appeals to remove alcohol advertising from specific communities • Direct appeal to retailers by residents to voluntarily stop selling items which appeal to chronic public inebriates and to sign "Good Neighbor Agreements" • Increased social service pmvision (eg shelters, chemical dependency treatment) • Increased police participataon in dealing with cluonic public inebriation problems • Urban revitalization development Concerns While Tacoma has seen nuisance activity related to public inebriation drop under AIA restrictions, such strategies have been disappointing in Seattle, even to proponents. After Seattle implemented an AIA in one neighborhood, a spillover effect occurred and neighboring communities saw public inebriation problems increase. Seattle is currently hoiding public hearings to explore an expansion of the AIA to six more neighborhoods. Regulation city-wide has the potential to mitigate the displacement problem of zones while treating citizens and off-site liquor licensees equally. However, an increase in the scope of such regulations could proportionally increase opposition. A city's relationship with small business owners deserves cazeful consideration. In Tacoma and Seattle some storeowners felt that although AiA restrictions did mitigate public inebriation problems, the also felt that the regulations hurt their businesses. While some reported a drop in sales after AIA regulations, no statistically significant loss was found. They aiso expressed a general concern regarding the concentration of stores in a small area which increases pressure on all stores to sell to chronic public inebriates. These concerns are echoed by storeowners (who tend to be the most vocal opponents) in many communities using restrictions similaz to AIA. Beer and wine distributors are also likely to oppose such regularions. In the Tacoma study, however, there was no hard data showing revenue loss. Three of five distributors reported a decrease in sales and 2 reported an increase. Only one provided data, showing a 19% increase in sales within the AIA after restrictions went into effect. Application to Saint Paul When comparing Saint Paul's options to strategies used in other municipalities it is important to recognize that pubiic inebriation is a proportionaliy smaller problem here. While some ' http://www.sesrc.wsu.edu/sesresite/recent-papets/pdfs/WAIA-report-6-17-03.pdf CCQ -1�t� community members have contacted city officials to indicate their displeasure with litter and loitering related to alcohol, there does not appeaz to be widespread urgency in unplementing restrictive policies on specific products. Given that municipal restrictions and bans tend to be politically char�ed and equally divided, a lack of initial public support makes implementation a lengthy process. Additionally, important questions remain about the lasting effects that restrictive problem solving strategies have on communities: • Would restrictions unfairly punish law-abiding citizens who responsibly consume banned products? • Does targeting neighborhoods that suffer from these problems encourage gentrification and redefinition of a community against its will? Recommendations Ultimately, poverty, unemployment and addiction are the real problems leading to public inebriation. The chief question surrounding restrictions on specific products then arises: will a ban solve these underlying problems? In the case of Tacoma, restrictions have proven mildiy successful at dispersing the problem and inconveniencing alcoholics, enough so that Seattle is patterning their strategies after Tacoma. Realistically, however, restrictions on availability are simply not enough. Tazgeting normalized acceptance of public inebriation is more likely to be effective as the pzimary focus for the reduction of associated problems. Strategies built azound citizen participation and aimed toward the root of public inebriation (ie alcoholism and a lack of ownership in neighborhoods) are socially and politically stronger starting points than restrictive policies.