09-814Council File # D / - �j/ �-/
Green Sheet # 3p�2� C�
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented by
�� � ��
�
1 WHEREAS, adverse action was initiated against all licenses held by Moonlight Magic, Inc. dJb/a
2 Moonlight (License ID #20040003727) for the premises located at 601 Westem Avenue North in Saint
3 Paul by Notice of Violation dated July 9, 2009, alleging the licensee violated several license conditions
4 cited by Saint Paul Police during a proactive visit to the establishment on July 5, 2009; and
5
6 WHEREAS, the Notice of Violation documented violations to license condition #2 (failure to
7 provide adequate security personnel); license condition #3 (failure to "wand" and check patrons purses
8 entering the establishment; condition #13 (failure to close establishment at 1:00 a.m.); condition #4 (failure
9 to check identification of patrons entering the establishment); and
10
11 WHEREAS, the licensee had a previous adverse action which the CiTy Council adopted on July 15,
12 2009 (CF #09-742) for license condition violations; and
13
14 WHEREAS, per Saint Paul Legislative Code §310A5 (m)(1), the licensing office will
15 recommended a second thirty (30) day closure of the establishment and a second $2,000.00 matrix penalty;
16 and
17
18 WHEREAS, this recommendation is a deviation from the penalty matrix based upon the fact that
19 the licensee has committed numerous license condition violations even after the first Notice of Violation
20 had been sent on June 16, 2009. These facts indicated that the licensee openly and intentionally
21 disregarded the license conditions; and
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
WHEREAS, licensee did not respond to the current Notice of Violation Yo request either a public
heazing or an administrative heazing; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Violation stated that if the licensee failed to request a hearing by July 20,
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/bla Moonlight are suspended and
the establishment is hereby closed a second thirty (30) days for the numerous license condition violations
cited by Saint Paul Police during a proactive visit on July 5, 2009. Said suspension shall become effective
at 12:01 a.m. on Friday, September 4, 2009 and last until 11:59 p.m. Saturday, October 3, 2004.
o�-�I�
31 FLTRTT�R RESOLVED, the licensee is ordered to pay a second matrix penalty of $2,000.00.
32 Payment of such penalty shall be made within thirty days of the date of the adoption of this resolution
Adopted by Council: Date �� ('�y f�Gt
Adopf Certi d by Cou cil5ecr te�ary �—
/
BY�( F^�
Approve ayo � Dat / V
By:
Reques by Depaztment of:
�l1 � �"--� �n,O��t.�„�;S
By. � � � ,��
Form A roved by City Attorney
BY� �r��./� � (2� /-�/
Form rov y M�pk for si t Couqcil
By: ' V�� r
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
bg-8��}
)epartmenUOffice/Council: Date Initiated:
S� _ Dept. of Safety S Inspections `�UL-09 , Green Sheet NO: 3072890
Contact Person & Phone:
Rachel Tiemev
266-8710
Must Be on Cour
O5
Doc. 7ype: RESOLUTION
,
I Assign
by {Date): Number
� Por
Routing
� Order
E-Document Required: Y
Document Contacf: .lulie Kraus
ConWctPhone: 2668776
ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
��
Approval of the attached resolurion to take adverse acrion against all licenses held by Moonlight Magiq Inc. d/b/a Moonlight (License
ID#20040003727) for the premises located at 601 Westem Avenue North in Saint Paul.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R):
Planning Commission
qB Committee
Civil Service Commission
Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions:
1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for lhis departmenl?
Yes No
2. Has this persoNfittn ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this personffirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current ciry employee?
Yes No
Ezptain all yes a�swers nn separete sheet and attach to green sheet.
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunify (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
License violated several license conditions cited by Saint Paul Police during a proacfive visit on July 5, 2009. These violations
occutred afrer the first Notice of Viola6on was sent to the licensee on 7une 16, 2009. After notificafion the licensee failed to respond
to the cuixent Notice of Violation.
Advantages IfApproved:
A second 30-day closure of the establishment and a second $2,000.00 matrix penalty.
Disadvantages If Approved:
Nane.
Disadvanqges If Not Approved:
Total Amount of
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
Financial Information:
iExplain)
CosURevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number.
July 20, 2009 4:19 PM Page 1
6�-�1�
SASNS
PAUL
�
AAl1A
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Chnstopher B. Coleman, Mayor
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Jahn J. Choi, CityAttomey
Telephone: 65T 266-8710
Facs�mile: 651 298-56 7 9
July 9, 2009
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Moua Yang
Moonlight
601 Westem Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55103
Civil Division
400 City Hall
75 West Kellogg Blvd.
Sarnt Paul, Minnesota 55702
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 Mr. Yang:
The Department of Safety and Inspections (DSn will recommend adverse action against the all licenses
held by Moonlight Magic, Inc. d/b!a Moonlight for the premises ]ocated at 601 Westem Avenue North in Saint
Paul. The basis for the recommendation is as follows:
On July 5, 2009, at approximately 1:16 a.m., a St. Paul Police Commander made a
proactive visit to you establishment. As the Commander pulled up to the front of your
establishment, she noticed a Metro Security vehicle parked in front and two (2) uniformed
guards standing on the sidewalk near the open front door.
The Commander approached the two (2) security guards. One of the guards stated that you
had hired him and two other security guards for the evening. The Commander asked
where the third security person was and he told her that she had already gone home. This
is a violation of license condition #2 which states: "No fewer than four (4) security personnel
shall be on duty every Friday and Saturday evening between 9:00 p.m. and closing time or
until ¢ll patrons have Zeft the premises (including the parking lot), whichever is later."
The Commander then asked the security guard if they were wanding patrons entering the
bar and he stated that he did not have a wand but that they were searching everyone and
requesting identification. This is a violatSon of license condition #3 which states: "At least
one of the four security personnel shall be assigned at each entrance starting at 9:00 p.m. every
Friday and Saturday night who shall "wand" (using a metal detector) each patron and check
all handbags and/or packages carried by each patron. P¢trons re-entering the establishmen[
sh¢dl be subject to the same security measures as patrons entering fhe estabtishment for the
frst time." The Commander then asked why the doors were open and the music still
playing. The security guard did not know because he was told to stay on the sidewalk until
the bar closed.
Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer
Moonlight
3uly 9, 2009
Page 2
a�-�i�
As the Commander entered the establishment, she noticed two people at the bar with beer
bottles partially full in front of them. The Commander asked the bartender where you
were and she stated that you were upstairs. As the Commander walked upstairs, inside a
room at the top of the stairs were approximately 100 people sitting, dancing and socializing.
The band was playing and the lights were down. As the Commander walked over to the
bar, there were several people sitting at the bar with a beer in front of them.
While waiting to speak with you, the Commander stood near the end of the bar and
watched the activity. During this time, the band continued to play. At 1:26 a.m., the
Commander noticed two girls at the bar ordering four (4) Corona beers in bottles. The
bartender �Iled the order and then two gentlemen came over by the giris and started
drinlzing two of the beers. The Commander approached the four (4) people and told them
they needed to leave because the bar was closed. This is a violation of license condition #13
which states: "......Between June I, 2009 and December 3I, 2009, the establishment will
close no Z¢ter than 1:00 a.m. every night, last call will be at I2:30 ¢.m. and al[ patrons must
exit by I:30 a.m."
When the Commander finally spoke with you, she told you everyone needed to leave
because the bar should be closed. She explained to you that your license condition does not
allow songs to be played at 1:26 a.m. and last call was at 12:30 a.m. You said the music
and people did not need to leave unti11:30 a.m., but the Commander stated again that the
music needed to stop and people needed to leave now. As people were leaving, the
Commander stayed at the top of the stairs and noticed some of the patrons were trying to
leave with drinks in their hands. She noted that she was the only one at the door trying to
stop this behavior and no staff inembers intervened to help her.
The Commander saw a group of females in the crowd and stopped one to ask for her
identi�cation. The female told her that she did not have identification and that she was 18
years of age. At that time, an older male approached the Commander and told her that it
was a private party and it didn't matter what age she was. The Commander told them it
did matter and she should have been asked for her identification at the door. This is a
violation of license condition #4 which states: Security at the entrance (or bar staff if no
security is present) shatl verify the age of all patrons entering the establishment by checking
state or federally issued identification cards (no picture ID, no entrance)... "
After the crowd dispersed, the Commander spoke with you again regarding the violations
she observed during her visit You stated that you had instructed your bartender to stop
serving but could not tell the Commander exactly what Ume you did this. The Commander
told you that the band needed to stop at 12:30 a.m. and no one should have been served
after that time. The Commander also told you that you needed four (4) security guards and
they are required to wand and check identifications of all patrons entering the bar. The
Commander also informed you that underage persons were allowed in the bar so your
security guards were not wanding and checking identifications.
The Commander told you that you are required to follow the license conditions you agreed
to with the Department of Safety and Inspections and that the St. Paul Police Department
would be willing to work with you. You stated that you were being "picked on" and walked
away.
Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer
Moonlight
July 9, 2009
Page 3
by��l �
The Commander then went to speak with the bartender and asked her what instructions she
received from you regarding the time to stop serving alcohol. She stated that she was not given
any instructions and thought that since the band was still playing it was okay to serve patrons.
The Commander went back downstairs and told the people still sitting the bar that they needed
to leave. The bartender looked at her but did not assist her in getting patrons out of the bar.
As the Commander left the building, she observed several males by the entrance and two (2) of
the security guards. She told them to leave and several needed to be persuaded to go to their
cars. You came out and told her that these patrons were relatives and they could come back in
for a private party. The Commander told you that oniy working staFf was allowed back inside.
The Commander then asked you again about the number of security guards and you told her
that you hired four (4) but only three (3) showed up. The Commander reminded you that you
were required to have four (4) security guards.
Due to the fact that you have violated several license conditions within three (3) weeks of receiving the last
Notice of Violation, per Saint Paul Legislative Code §310.05(m) (1), the licensing office will recommend a second
$2,000.00 matrix penalty and a second 30-day closure of your establishment.
At this time, you have two options on how to proceed:
1. If you wish to admit the facts but contest the penalty, you may have a public hearing before the
Saint Paul Ciry Council, you will need to send me a letter with a statement admitting the facts and
requesting a public heazing. We will need to receive your letter by Monday, July 20, 2009. The
matter will then be scheduled before the City Council for a public hearing to determine whether to
impose the second $2,000.00 matrix penalty and second 30-day closure of your establishment. You
will have an opportunity to appear before the Council and make a statement on your own behalf.
2. If you dispute the above facts, you can request a heating bePore an Administra6ve Law Judge. At that
hearing both you and the City will be able to appear and present witnesses, evidence and cross-examine
each othei s witnesses. The St. Paul City Council will ultimately decide the case. If this is your choice,
please advise me no later than Monday, July 20, 2009, and I wil] take the necessary steps to schedule the
administrative hearing.
If you have not contacted me by that date, I will assume that you are not contesting imposition of
the second $2,000 matrix penalty and second 30-day closure of your establishment. 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 feel free to contact me at 266-871o.
Sincerely,
�j�.�,�- (� ca,L�—
Rachel Tiemey
Assistant Ciry 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 Opportuniry Employer
STATE OF MINNESOT.'
� ss. AFFIDAVIT OF 5E�_ . ICE BY U.S. MAIL
COLTNTY OF RAMSEY )
b�1 �� I �
Julie Kraus, being first duly swom, deposes and says that on the�� day of 7uly, she
served the attached NOTICE OF VIOLATION by placing a true and correct copy thereof in an
envelope addressed as follows:
Moua Yang
Moonlight
601 Western Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55103
Pao L.ee
2295-80�' Street East
Hugo, MN 55038
Tait Danielson Castillo, Exec. Director
Thomas-Dale/District 7 Planning Council
533 Nofth Dale 5treet
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.
��
3uh Kraus
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this �day of July, 2009
��� � r . �
Notary Public
RITA M. BOSSARD
NDTpRY PUBLIC • MINt�SOTA
MY COMMISSION
EXPIRES JAN. 31. 2 O 1 0
Chapter 310. Uniform License procedures
D�1-SI�
Page 1 of 3
mj 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 invoiving a liquor license § 40926 shall apply where a sQecific 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 individual violation of § 331A. The total fine amount for violations of § 331A
may exceed the maximum fine outlined befow due to muftiple violations i� one (1) appearance.
All penalty 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 councif 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.
TABLE INSET:
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 $2,000.00 fine
the legislative code relating $500.00 fine $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
iicensee or emp{oyee
(7) Death or great bodily 30-day 60-day
harm in establishment suspension suspension Revocation nJa
related to violation of Iaw or
license conditions
(8) Failure to pay license Revocation
fees
(9) Critical violations under $1,000.00, 5- Revocation
331A $250.00 $500.00 day
suspension
(10) 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/]0061/1/318/319?hilite=31005; 7/9/2009
Chapter 310. Uniform License procedures
d�1'�l �{
Page 2 of 3
A. Notwithstanding fhe provisions of section 310.05{c), a licensee who would be
making a first or second appearance before the council may etect 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 6ecause of
circumstances which may warrant deviation from the presumptive fine amount.
Payment of the recommended fine will be considered to be a waiver af the
hearing to which the licensee is entitled, and will 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 iicensee
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
outlined above.
(ii) Multiple violations. At a licensee's first appearance before the city council, the
councii shall consider and act upon all 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 formal notice of hearing. The councif in that case shafl consider
the presumptive penaity for each such violation under the "ist Appearance" column in
paragraph (b) above. The occurrence of multiple violations 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 shall in that case be treated as though part of the "1st
Appearance." In ail other cases, violations 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 councii.
(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 Council in relation to any violation other than another violation
of Chapter 331 A.
(v) Computation of time.
(1) If a licensee appears before the council 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 shaii 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 1 8/3 1 9?hilite=310 05; 7/9/2009
Chapter 310. Uniform LicensP Procedures
Page 3 of 3
vq,g�u
for violations listed in paragraph (m) or section 409.26, and if said licensee again
appears before the council for a violation listed in paragraph (m), and if the
current viotation occurs within eighteen (18) calendar monihs of the violation that
gave rise to the first appearance before the council, then the current appearance
shall 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 409.26, and if
said licensee again appears before the council for a violation contained in
paragraph (m), and if the current violation occurred within twenty-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 council regarding a death or great bodily harm in a
licensed establishment that is related to a violation of the law or license
conditions shall be counted as a second appearance, regardfess 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. OS-1208, § 1, 12-17-08)
http://library4.municode.com/4472/DocView/1006 1/1/3 1 8/3 1 9?hilite=310 O5; 7/9/2009