09-742Council File # 09-742
Green Sheet # 3072226
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented by �� u ��
la
WHEREAS, adverse action was initiated against all licenses held by Moonlight Magic, Inc. d/b/a
Moonlight (License ID#20040003727) for the premises located at 601 Western Avenue North in Saint
Paul by Notice of Violation dated June 16, 2009, alleging that licensee failed to submit the correct
videotape of an assault on February 23, 2009 as requested by Saint Paul Police in violation of license
condition #6; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Violation also alleged that on May 15, 2009, the licensee violated
several license conditions: #4 (no security after 9:00 p.m.,) license condition #1 (patrons were not wanded
as they entered the establishment) and license condition #9 (last call was at 1:45 a.m. instead of 130 a.m);
10 and,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
WHEREAS, the Notice of Violation also alleged on June 12, 2009, after meeting with Department
of Safety and Inspections and signing and agreeing to a REVISED license condition affidavit, that same
day the licensee was then cited for several license condition violations: #1 (lack of security afrer 9:00
p.m.), # 3(patrons were not wanded as they entered the establisYunent), #10 (failure to submit a videotape
upon request of Saint Paul Police), #4 (failure to request identification of patrons entering the
establishment); and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Violation also alleged on June 14, 2009, police observed security
personnel socializing with patrons outside the establishment in violation of license condition #5 and
patrons were seen leaving the establishment at 1:50 a.m. in violation of license condition #13; and
WHEREAS, per Saint Paul Legislative Code §409.26(b) (12), the licensing office recommended a
$2,000.00 matrix penalty and a thirty (30) day closure of the establishment; and
WHEREAS, this is a deviation form the penalty matrix based upon the fact that the licensee has
committed numerous violations in a very short period of time and even violated license conditions the
same day that the licensee signed and agreed to those conditions. These facts indicated that the licensee
openly and intentionally disregarded the license conditions; and
WHEREAS, licensee did not respond to the Notice of Violation to request either a public hearing or
32 an administrative hearing; and
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
WHEREAS, the Notice of Violation stated that if the licensee failed to request a hearing by June
26, 2009, that the matter would be placed on the consent agenda to impose the recommended penalty; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the licenses held by Moonlight Magic, Inc. d/b/a Moonlight are suspended and
the establishment is hereby closed for thirty (30) days for the numerous license condition violations on
February 23, 2009; May 15, 2009; June 12, 2009 and June 14, 2009. Said suspension shall become
effective at 12:01 a.m. on Wednesday, August 5, 2009, and last until 11:59 p.m. Thursday, September 3,
2009.
09-742
43 FCTR'I'HER RESOLVED, the licensee is ordered to pay a matrix penalty of $2,000.00. Payment of
44 such penalty shall be made within thirty days of the date of the adoption of this resolution.
45
Bostrom
Cazter
Hazris
Helgen
Yeas
Requested by Department of:
-p -- �
� �Ll.l Ci.NI.�. �U-' yW '(�'.Y.L' M S
B � ta�� 19 �Z`�'�-/
S[azk
Thune
Adopted by Council: Date
✓
Adoption Certified by Cou acil Secretary
BY� a�� ` _ s?�
Approved b . D te � �(p '•
By:
Form roved by City Attorney
BY� � I�t.�LwY. �f.l.�-f'
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission�to Council
/
BY� ��g .u�1 r.�
09-742
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
� S � _ Dept, of Safety & Inspe
��, Conpd Person 8 Phone:
j Rachel Tiemey
� 266-8���
� Must Be on Council !{qenda by
i 7SJUL-09 ��+��A�
i Doc. Type: RESOLUTION
0&JUL-09 I Green Sheet NO: 3072226
� °
1
Assign Z
Number 3
For
Routing 4
Order 5
�
DepartmentDirector I
��
� Mavor/Assistant i
��
C�� -- 'ry Cterk ^ I
E-Document Required: Y
Document Contact: �ulie Kraus
Contact Phone: 26G8776
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Approval of the attached resolurion to take adverse action against all licenses held by Moonlight Magc, Inc. d/b/a Moonlight (License
ID#20040003727) for the premises located at 601 Western Avenue North in Saint Paul.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R):
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Civii Service Commission
Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following questions:
1. Has this person/firm everworked under a conlract for this department?
Yes No
2. Has this personffirm ever been a ciry employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/frm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
curtent city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet.
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Licensee violated several license conditions during incidents documented by Saint Paul Police on February 23, 2009; May 15, 2009;
June 12, 2009 and June 14, 2009. After notification, licensee did not respond to the Notice of Violation.
Advantages If Approved:
Imposition of $2,000 matrix penalty and 30 day closure of establishment.
Disadvantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Total Amount of
Transaction:
Funding Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
CostlRevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
July 8, 2009 11:43 AM Page 1
09-742
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
John J. Choi, CityAttomey
SAiNT
PAOL
�
IIIIAA
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Chnstopher 8. Coleman, Mayor
Civil Division
400 Ciry Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55702
Telephane: 657 266-8710
Facsimile: 651298-5679
June 16, 2009
Owner/Manager
Moonlight
601 Westem Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55103
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
RE: All licenses held by Moonlight Magic, Inc. d/b/a Moonlight for the premises located at
601 Western Avenue North in Saint Paul
License ID #: 20040003727
Dear Sit/Madam:
The Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) will recommend adverse acuon against the all
licenses held by Moonlight Magic, Inc. d/b/a Moonlight for the premises located at 60] Westem Avenue
North in Saint Paul. The basis for the recommendaaon is as follows:
On Friday, May 15, 2009, at 9:41 p.m., the West Anti-Crime Unit of the St. Paul Police
Department came to walk through your establishment (CN#09-095-671). When the
police arrived, they spoke with the only member of security on staff at the time. He told
police that there would be one more member of the security staff arriving
approximately one hour later. This is a violation of license condifSon #4 which states:
"The license holder will employ properly trained security personnel who wi[I be on duty
every Friday ¢nd Saturday from 9PM to Closing."
He then told police that the "wand" was in the back of the bar and would be brought
out at 10:00 p.m. and he admitted that none of the approximately 10 (ten) patrons
currently in the bar had been wanded. This is a violation of license condition #1 which
states: "All patrons will be checked for weapons (wanded) prior to entry, while security is
on duty."
Ae also told police that last call was at 1:45 a.m. which is violation of license condition
#9 which states: "The establishment wiU close no late than 2AM every night. Last ca11
witl be at I:30AM. A11 potrons must exil by 2:30AM...."
On February 24, 2009, St. Paul Police were told by the Crime Lab that the videotape
you submitted was from May of 2008 and it was not usable. When police contacted you
regarding the videotape, you told them that you were out of town when the �ght
happened and you did not know the identity of any of the suspects. The officer then
explained that the video was unusable and you told him that you would check the
machine and make sure there were no other videos.
Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer
09-742
Moonlight
lune 16, 2009
Page 2
On May 18, 2009, Police contacted you again requesting that you check the video
machine for the correct videotape from the February 23, 2009 incident You told police
that the only video was the one he gave to police that day. This is a violarion of license
condition # 6 which states: "The Zicense holder must maintain video surveillance cameras
inside and outside the establishment. The video must be recorded each business day and
then stored for no less than 7 days. Tapes will be immediately avai7able to SPPD and/or
LIEP when reguested. Failure to provide the tapes wi11 be grounds for adverse action
against all licenses."
On June 12, 2009, you met with Kris Schweinler from Department of Safety and
Inspections to sign a revised License Condition Af�davit. Later that same evening, St.
Paul Police received information at roll call concerning another shooting at your
establishment the night before. When police walked through your establishment 10:00
p.m., they observed the several license condition violations (CN #09-119-213):
1) No security officers working inside in violation of license condition #1 which states:
"Na fewer than four (4) security personnel shal[ be on duty every Friday and Saturday
evening between 9:00 p.m. and closing time or until all pabons have Zeft the premises
(including the parking lot) whichever is later."
2) No security officers at the front door to wand patrons in violation of license wndition
#3 which states: "At le¢st one of the four security personnel shall be assigned at each
entrance starting at 9: 00 p.m. every Friday and Sahtrday night who shall "wand" (using a
metal detector) each patron and check all handbags ¢nd/or p¢ckages carried by each
patron. Patrons re-entering the establishment shall be subject to the same securfty
measures as patrons entering the establishment for the fzrst time."
3) Police requested video surveillance for ten (10) minutes prior to their arrival and the
employee was unable to get the tape out of the recorder. The video recorder was not
operational so videotape was not provided to St Paul Police upon request in violation of
license condition #10 which states: "In accordance with Saint Paul Police Department
recommendations, the licensee will provide and maintain working surveillance cameras
and equipment to record activity on the premises both inside and out. T¢pe/recordings
sh¢ZZ be maintained for a minimum of thirty (30) days, and there shall be an employee on
staff at all times during business hours with the abiliry to make the tape immediately
available to the Saint Paul Police Department and/or Department of Safety ¢nd
Inspections upon request."
4) Police observed two males walk into the bar and order beers and the bartender
served them without asking for identi�cation in violation of license condition #4 which
states: "Security at the entrance (or bar staff if no security is present) shall verify the age
of all patrons entering the establishment by checking state or federally issued identification
cards (no picture I.D. — no entrance). Patrons re-entering the establishment shall be
subject to the same security measures as patrons entering the establishmertt for the ftrst
time."
Later that evening, another police squad was patrolling near your establishment at
approximately 11:30 p.m. and observed a female enter the establishment through the
front door without any interaction with security personnel (CN# 09-119315). When
police approached the front door, they spoke with two men standing outside the
entrance. The police asked them if they were employees and they said they were not
Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer
Moonlight
June 16, 2009
Page 3
09-742
employees. After police entered the bar through the main entrance, they noticed the
same two men follow behind them without any interaction with security personnel.
These are violations to license condition #3 which states: "At Zeast orze ofthe four security
personnel sha11 be assigned at each enbance starting at 9:00 p.m. every Friday ¢nd
Saturday night who shall "wand" (using a metal detector) each patron and check a11
handb¢gs and/or packages carried by each patron. Patrons re-entering the establishment
sha[Z be subject to the same security measures as pairons entering the establishment for the
first time." and license condition #4 which states: �°Security at the entrance (or bar staff if
no security is present) shall verify the age of all patrons entering the establishment by
checking state or federally issued identificaKon cards (no picture I.D. — no entrance).
P¢trons re-entering the establishment sha11 be subject to the same security measures as
patrons entering the establishment for the first time."
They asked the male working behind the bar if he was an employee and he stated that
he was not an employee. At that time, the co-owner of the bar stepped forward. When
police told him that they did not observe security personnel working at the front door,
he stated that "he called in sick". Police then reminded him that by license condition #3
he needed to have four (4) security persons working. He told police that he was aware
of the license condition and he would shut the bar down if they requested he do so.
On June 14, 2009, a police squad came by your establishment and observed no security
outside but noticed that there were still patrons inside (CN#09-120347). At 1:20 a.m.,
the officer observed patrons coming in and out of the establishment without any check
by security. A few minutes later, he noticed a group of people step out for a smoke
along with security. Security was socializing with the patrons outside then they all went
back into the bar. This is a violation of license condition #5 which states: '°Securiry
personnel will not socialize with patrons and will not be allowed to drink akoho[ic
beverages while on duty."
According to the police report, the patrons were coming and going and the last patron
left the establishment at 1:50 a.m. in violation of license condition #13 which states:
.....Between June I, 2009 and December 3I, 2009, the establishment will close no later
than I:00 a. m. every night, Zast call will be at 12:30 a.m. and all patrons must exit by I:30
a.m.
Due to the number and frequency of your license condition violauons, per Saint Paul Legislative Code
§310.05(m) (i), the licensing office will recommend a$2,000.00 matrix penalty and a 30-day ciosure of
your establishment.
At this time, you have two options on how to proceed:
If you wish to admit the facts but contest the penalty, you may have a public hearing before the
Saint Paul City Council, you will need to send me a letter with a statement admitting the facts and
requesting a public hearing. We will need to receive your letter by Friday, June 26, 2009. The
matter will then be scheduled before the City Council for a public hearing to determine whether to
impose the $2,000.00 matrix penalty and 30-day closure of your establishment. You will have an
opportunity to appear before the Council and make a statement on your own behalf.
Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer
09-742
Moonlight
June 16, 2009
Page 4
3. If you dispute the above facts, you can request a hearing before an Administrative L,aw Judge. At that
hearing both you and the City will be able to appear and present wimesses, evidence and cross-examine
each other's wimesses. The St. Pau] City Council will ultimately decide the case. If this is your choice,
please advise me no later than Friday, June 26, 2009, and I will take the necessary steps to schedule the
administrative hearing.
If you have not contacted me by that date, I wili assume that you are not contesting the
$2,000 matrix penalty and 30-day closure of your estabtishment. In that case, the matter will be
placed on the City Council Consent Agenda for approval of the recommended penalty.
If you have questions about these options, please fee] free to contact me at 266-8710.
Sincerely,
�r�l,�`TV:.�-
Rachel Tiemey
Assistant City Attorney
cc: Christine Rozek, Deputy Director of DSI
Pao Lee, 2295-80`" Street East, Hugo, MN 55038
Tait Danielson Castillo, Exec. Director, Thomas-Dale/District 7 Planning Council
533 North Dale Street, St. Paul, MN 55103
Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer
STAT`E OF MINNESOT '
) ss.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
09-742
AFFIDAVIT OF SExVICE BY U.S. MAIL
Julie Kraus, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the ���day of June, she
served the attached NOTICE OF VIOLATION placing a true and correct copy thereof in an
envelope addressed as follows:
Owner/Manager
Moonlight
601 Western Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55103
Pao I,ee
2295-80` Street East
Hugo, MN 55038
Tait Danielson Castillo, Exec. Director
Thomas-Dale/District 7 Planning Council
533 North Dale Street
St. Paul, MN 55103
(which is the last known address of said person) depositing the same, with postage prepaid, in the
United States mail at St. Paul, Minnesota.
Juh Kraus
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this �� day of June, 2009
��e,a �OGZ9l /`"� ' ,�r %iG�i - (.��C.U/LP�I,
Notary Public
.._,-¢u.�:�.�. _Y :�, �,.�� -
�:�''° x 5 €ssan'r✓+arieJanisch-Warner
t�s�7ARY FUB! IC • MINNESOTA �
�',� E�iYCOA98�ti3SIOM
"' '�i�,N'� -°� EXr�lRuS.FHtv,35,2012 ,
� .� _ , �. - �cr��s' �
Chapter 310. Uniform Licen�°- Procedures 09-742 Page 1 of 3
m) Presumptive penalties for certain violations. The purpose of this section is to establish a
standard by which the city council determines the amount of fines, the length of license
suspensions and the propriety of revocations, and shall apply to all license types, except that in
the case of a violation involving a liquor license § 40926 shall apply where a specific violation is
listed. In the case of an adverse action filed for a violation of chapter 331A, the licensee shall be
given a fine for each individuai violation of § 331A. The total fine amount for viotatiorts of § 331A
may exceed the maximum fine outlined below due to multiple violations in one (1) appearance.
All penaity recommendations for chapter 331A violations shall be based on the food penalty
guideline referred to in chapter 331A. These penalties are presumed to be appropriate for every
case; however the council may deviate therefrom in an individual case where the council finds
and determines that there exist substantial and compelling reasons making it more appropriate
to do so. When deviating from these standards, the council shall provide written reasons that
specify why the penalty selected was more appropriate.
TABLEINSET:
Type of Violation APPearance
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
(1) Violations of conditions $500.00 fine $1,000.00 $2 000.00 fine Revocation
placed on the license fine and 10-day
suspension
(2) Violation of provisions of $500.00 fine $2,000.00 fine
the legislative code relating $1,000.00 and 10-day Revocation
to the licensed activity fine suspension
(3) Violation of provisions of
the legislative code relating $2,000.00 fine
to the licensed activity, $500.00 fine $1,000.00 and 10-day Revocation
other than violations of the fine suspension
food code
(4) Failure to permit 5-day 10-day 15-day Revocation
entrance or inspection by suspension suspension suspension
DSI inspector or police
(5) Commission of a crime
other than a felony on the 5-day Revocation
premises by a licensee or $�00.00 $1,500.00 suspension
employee
(6) Commission of a felony
on the premises by a $2,000.00 Revocation n/a n/a
licensee or employee
(7) Death or great bodily 30-day 60-day
harm in establishment suspension suspension Revocation n/a
related to violation of law or
license conditions
(8) Failure to pay license Revocation
fees
(9) Critical violations under $1,000.00, 5- Revocation
331 A $250.00 $500.00 day
suspension
(70) Non-critical violation $150.00 $250.00 $500.00 $1,000.00
under 331A
(i) Fines payable without hearing .
http://library4.municode.com/4472/DocView/10061/1/317/318?hilite=310 O5; 6/16/2009
Chapter 310. Uniform LicenG� Procedures 09-742 Page 2 of 3
A. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 310.05(c), a licensee who wouid be
making a first or second appearance before the councii may elect to pay the fine
to the Department of Safety and Inspections without a council hearing, unless the
notice of violation has indicated that a hearing is required because of
circumstances which may warrant deviation from the presumptive fine amount.
Payment of the recommended fine will be considered to be a waiver of the
hearing to which the licensee is entitled, and wili be considered an "appearance"
for the purpose of determining presumptive penalties for subsequent violations.
B. For adverse action initiated under Chapter 331A of this Code, a fine may be
paid without a hearing regardless of how many prior appearances that licensee
has made before the Council. The above council hearing requirement applies to
violations under Chapter 331A unless the fine recommended by the Department
of Safety and Inspections is equal to or less than the fine amount outlined in the
above matrix. Payment of the recommended fine will be considered to be a
waiver of the hearing to which the licensee is entitled, and will be considered an
"appearance" for the purpose of determining presumptive penalties for
subsequent violations. A non-critical violation under chapter 331A shall not be
considered an "appearance" for purposes of determining presumptive penalties
for non-331A violations. A council hearing is required if the Department of Safety
and Inspections recommends a fine that is an upward departure for the amount
outiined above.
(ii) Multiple violations. At a licensee's first appearance before the city council, the
council shall consider and act upon ail the violations that have been alleged and/or
incorporated in the notices sent to the licensee under the administrative procedures act
up to and including the formai notice of hearing. The council in that case shall consider
the presumptive penalty for each such violation under the "1st Appearance" column in
paragraph (b) above. The occurrence of multiple viblations shall be grounds for
departure from such penalties in the council's discretion.
(iii) Violations occurring after the date of the notice of hearing. Violations occurring
after the date of the notice of hearing that are brought to the attention of the city attorney
prior to the hearing date before an administrative law judge (or before the council in an
uncontested facts hearing) may be added to the notice(s) by stipulation if the licensee
admits to the facts, and shali in that case be treated as though part of the "1st
Appearance." In alt other cases, vioiations occurring after the date of the formal notice of
hearing shall be the subject of a separate proceeding and dealt with as a"2nd
Appearance" before the council. The same procedures shall apply to a second, third or
fourth appearance before the council.
(iv) Subsequent appearances. Upon a second, third or fourth appearance before the
council by a particular licensee, the council shall impose the presumptive 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, non-critical violations of Chapter 331A shall not be counted as an
"appearance" before the Councii in relation to any violation other than another violation
of Chapter 331A.
(v) Computation of time.
(1) If a licensee appears before the councii for any violation in paragraph (m)
where that violation has occurred within twelve (12) calendar months after the
first appearance of the same licensee for a violation listed in paragraph (m)
above or section 409.26, the current appearance shali be treated as a second
appearance for the purpose of determining the presumptive penalty.
(2) if a licensee has appeared before the council on two (2) previous occasions
http://library4.municode.com/4472/DocView/1006 1/1/3 17/3 1 8?hilite=31005; 6/16/2009
Chapter 310. Uniform Licen�P Procedures 09-742 Page 3 of 3
for violations listed in paragraph (m) or section 409.26, and if said licensee again
appears before the councii for a violation listed in paragraph (m), and if the
current violation occurs within eighteen (18) calendar months of the violation that
gave rise to the first appearance before the councii, then the current appearance
shali be treated as a third appearance for the purpose of determining
presumptive penalty.
(3) If a licensee has appeared before the council on three (3) previous
occasions, each for violations listed in paragraph (m) or section 40926, and if
said licensee again appears before the council for a violation contained in
paragraph (m), and if the current violation occurred within hventy-four (24)
calendar months of the violation that gave rise to the first appearance, then the
current appearance shall be treated as a fourth appearance for the purpose of
determining the presumptive penalty.
(4) Any appearance not covered by subsections (1), (2) or (3) above shail be
treated as a first appearance. In case of multiple violations in any appearance,
the date to be used to measure whether twelve (12), eighteen (18), or twenty-four
(24) months have elapsed shall be the date of the violation last in time at the first
appearance, and the date of the violation first in time at any subsequent
appearance.
(5) Notwithstanding subsections (iv)(1), (2), (3) or (4) above, a second
appearance before the councii regarding a death or great bodily harm in a
licensed establishment that is re{ated to a viotation of the {aw or ticense
conditions shall be counted as a second appearance, regardless of how much
time has passed since the first appearance if the first appearance was also
regarding a death or great bodily harm in a licensed establishment. A third
appearance for the same shall be counted as a third appearance regardless of
how much time has passed since the first or second appearance.
(Code 1956, § 510.05; Ord. No. 17551, § 2, 4-19-88; Ord. No. 17559, §§ 1, 2, 5-17-88; Ord. No. 17659,
§ 1, 6-13-89; Ord. No. 17911, § 1, 3-10-92; C.F. No. 94-46, § 7, 2-2-94; C.F. No. 94-898, §§ 2, 3, 7-13-
94; C.F. No. 94-1340, § 2, 10-19-94; C.F. No. 95-473, § 4, 5-31-95; C.F. No. 05-180, § 1, 4-6-05; C.F.
No. 06-954, § 1, 11-8-06; C.F. No. 06-1072, § 1, 12-27-06; C.F. No. 07-149, § 73, 3-28-07; C.F. No. 07-
1053, § 1, 11-28-07; C.F. No. 08-1208, § 1, 12-17-08)
http://library4.municode.com/4472/DocView/1006 1/1/3 17/3 1 8?hilite=310 O5; 6/16/2009