Loading...
95-1493 A. Council File # 95 P - A n Green Sheet # 3 3 " l L 4 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By ritAL Referred To Committee: Date 1 p.► 2 3 RESOLVED, that upon reference by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and upon 4 motion by the licensee, C. L. Hinze d/b /a Chuck's Bar, the Council of the City of Saint Paul 5 hereby stays the revocation of the licenses of such establishment during the pendency of the 6 appeal by such licensee of the revocation and its consideration by the Minnesota Court of 7 Appeals. 8 9 FURTHER RESOLVED, that this stay shall be effective until the date of the issuance 10 of a decision by the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal, or until a decision by the Court 11 of Appeals on the merits of the appeal. 12 13 FURTHER RESOLVED, that this stay is conditioned as follows: 14 15 1. That the licensee remain in compliance with all applicable rules and 16 regulations governing the licensed establishment during the time the 17 licensee's appeal is pending before the Court of Appeals, including but 18 not limited to: 19 20 a.) Refraining from the sale of liquor to under -aged persons or 21 obviously intoxicated persons. 22 23 b.) Refraining from the after -hours sale or consumption of alcohol 24 on the licensed premises. 25 26 c.) Cooperating with and allowing entry to all city inspectors and 27 police officers to inspect the premises during all business hours 28 and at any time that anyone is on the business premises. 29 30 d.) Contacting the police if or when any assaultive or physically 31 dangerous activity takes place in the licensed establishment. 32 33 2. That the licensee, Chuck Hinze, and any and all employees of the 34 licensed establishment shall not at any time (1) consume alcoholic 35 beverages in the licensed establishment or (2) appear in the licensed 36 establishment after having consumed any alcoholic beverages elsewhere. 37 This condition shall apply to the licensee and any employees of the 38 establishment any time that the establishment is open for business 39 regardless of whether the licensee or other employees are considered to 40 be working or on -duty. 41 . • _ p.2012 GIs - leg, 2 Violation of any one of the conditions as set forth above, as evidenced by the sworn affidavit 3 of the license inspector shall be grounds for the immediate withdrawal of the stay and, upon 4 the licensee being afforded the opportunity to be heard before a neutral decision-maker, ,if ni aj 5 result in the immediate closure of the licensed establishment. 6 Yea yy �� Nays Absent Requested by Department of: Blakey Harrris is Grimm Guerin ✓ Megard ✓ Rettman 1. Thune ✓ By: 1 o 0 Adopted by Council: Date ,�, Form Approved by City Attorney a. o l cks Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: t(. \k By: - -- - A&- _ &- - Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Approved b Ataifytt i-dA Mayor: to - B 4 L By: 95- 1491' DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED 12/20/95 GREEN SHEET N_ 33743 .414.6a11753.%1 DEPARTMENT INm TE D CITY COUNCIL INmAUD O — Nancy Anderson ASSIGN [J CITY ATTORNEY O CITY CLERK BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) FOR ❑ BUDGET DIRECTOR El FIN. a MOT. SERVICES DIR. NUMBER ORDER El MAYOR (OR ASSISTANT) TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION REQUESTED: Staying revocation of the licenses of C.L. Hinze, dba Chuck's Bar, 901 Payne Avenue, during the pendency of the appeal of the revocation and consideration by the MN Court of Appeals. Approve (A) or Reject (R) .+ PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: PLANNING COMMI8sioN _ CML SERVICE COMMISSbN 1. Has ifs person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? - W TEE YES NO 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employes,? — STAFF YES NO — DISTRICT COURT 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employes? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? YES NO Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet WITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, Whet, When, Whore, Why): • • • ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: • • DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION COST /REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO • FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE (PHONE NO. 2422a). ROUTING ORDER: Below are correct routings for the five most frequent types of documents: CONTRACTS (assumes authorized budget exists) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend Budgets/Accept. Grants) 1. OUtside Agency 1. Department Director 2. Department Director 2. Budget Director 3. City Attorney 3. City Attomey 4. Mayor (for contracts over $15,000) 4. Mayor /Assistant 5. Human Rights (for contracts over $50,000) 5. City Council 8. Finance and Management Services Director 6. Chief Accountant. Finance and Management Services 7. 'Finance AccOunting ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (Budget Revision) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others, and Ordinances) 1. Activity Manager 1. Department Director 2. Department Accountant 2. City Attorney 3. Department Director , 3. Mayor Assistant 4. Budget Director 4. City Council 5. City Clerk 8. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (alt others) 1. Department Director 2. City Attorney 3. Finance and Management Services Director 4. City Clerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES Indicate the #of pages on which signatures are required and paperclip or flag each of these pages. ACTION REQUESTED Describe what the project/request seeks to accomplish in either chronologi- cal order or order of Importance, whichever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write complete sentences. Begin each item In your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete if the issue in question has been presented before any body, public or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Council objective(s) your projecthequest supports by listing the key word(s) (HOUSING, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET, SEWER SEPARATION). (SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS: This information will be used to determine the city's liability for workers compensation claims, taxes and proper civil service hiring rules. INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY Explain the situation or conditions that created a need for your project or request. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget procedure required by law/ charter or whether there are specific ways in which the City of Saint Paul and its citizens will benefit from this project/action. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might this project/request produce if it is passed (e.g., traffic delays, noise, tax Increases or assessments)? To Whom? When? For how long? DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved? Inability to deliver service? Continued high traffic, noise, accident rate? Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you are. addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is It going to cost? Who is going to pay? OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E. Marx, City Attorney C AS '- 1 4-9.3 s �� 1J t. CITY OF SAINT PAUL Civil Division Norm Coleman, Mayor 400 City Hall Telephone: 612 266 -8710 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Facsimile: 612 298 -5619 A A A A Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 molow RECEIVED December 18, 1995 DEC 19 1995 CITY CLERK Mr. Fred Owusu City Clerk 170 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: The licenses of C.L. Hinze, Inc. d /b /a Chuck's Bar City Council File No. 95 -1398 Dear Mr. Owusu: Please find enclosed and served upon you License, Inspections and Environmental Protection's Response to the License's Motion for Stay of Revocation in the above - referenced matter. Very truly yours, anet A. Reiter Assistant City Attorney Enclosure • BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL C.F. No. 95 -1398 In Re The Licenses of C.L. Hinze RESPONSE OF LICENSE, d /b /a Chuck's Bar INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 901 Payne Avenue PROTECTION TO LICENSEE'S Saint Paul, MN MOTION FOR STAY OF REVOCATION TO: Council President Thune and Members of the City Council of the City of Saint Paul, 310 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Saint Paul, Minnesota Introduction. The Council of the City of Saint Paul voted on November 15, 1995 to revoke the licenses held by the above - referenced licensee. The resolution revoking the licenses, C.F. 95 -1398, was approved by the Council on November 29, 1995 and became effective upon signature by the acting Mayor, Pamela Wheelock, on November 30, 1995. An appeal of the revocation was filed by the licensee with the Minnesota Court of Appeals on December 1, 1995. The Court of Appeals granted, in part, the licensee's motion for stay of revocation pending the appeal of the license revocation. The granting of the stay is conditioned on the licensee filing a formal motion for a stay of revocation with the Council of the City of Saint Paul. The licensee has made a timely motion to the City Council to stay the revocation until the licensee's appeal may be heard by the Minnesota Court of Appeals pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.65. Argument. The Council of the City of Saint Paul, or the Court of Appeals 9 , S -t UT:1 has the authority to stay the pending revocation upon such terms as deemed proper. If the council denies a stay, it is anticipated that the Court of Appeals will likely approve a request for a stay of revocation, and remand it to the City Council for imposition of conditions. To promote efficiency and prevent waste of staff and Council resources, the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) at this time proposes to grant the stay but with conditions on the stay of revocation that will protect the public interest while the court of Appeals has the case. This action does not concede the validity of the appeal or of the various bases set forth by the licensee in its motion to stay revocation. LIEP requests that, should the Council of the City of Saint Paul stay the revocation, such action should be taken only if the following conditions are placed upon the licenses held by the licensee: 1. That the licensee remain in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations governing the licensed establishment during the time the licensee's appeal is pending before the Court of Appeals, including but not limited to: a.) Refraining from the sale of liquor to under -aged persons or obviously intoxicated persons. b.) Refraining from the after -hours sale or consumption of alcohol on the licensed premises. c.) Cooperating with and allowing entry to all city inspectors and police officers to inspect the premises during all business hours and at any time that anyone is on the business premises. d.) Contacting police if or when any assaultive or physically dangerous activity takes place in the licensed establishment. 2. That the licensee, Chuck Hinze, and any and all employees of the licensed establishment shall not at any time (1) consume ctS 14 13 alcoholic beverages in the licensed establishment or (2) appear in the licensed establishment after having consumed any alcoholic beverages elsewhere. This condition shall apply to the licensee and any employees of the establishment any time that the establishment is open for business regardless of whether the licensee or other employees are considered to be working or on -duty. Violation of any one of the conditions as set forth above, as evidenced by the sworn affidavit of the license inspector shall be grounds for the immediate withdrawal of the stay and will result in the immediate closure of the licensed establishment. Dated this 18th day of December 1995. Respectfully submitted, J ET A. REITER Assistant City Attorney Attorney for the office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection 400 City Hall /Court House 15 W Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Atty. Reg. # 250806 THOMAS M. CONLIN * MIJRNANE • CONLIN • TE & BRANDT THOMAS A. GILLIGAN, JR. ROBERT W. MURNANE DAVID C. ANASTASI ROBERT T. WHITE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION JOEL D. HEDBERG JOHN E. BRANDT * THOMAS J. NORBY JOHN D. HIRTE ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANNE F. BAKER STEVEN J. KIRSCH KAMMEY M. K. MAHOWALD ** ANDREW T. SHERN 1800 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA NICOLE B. SURGES MICHAEL S. RYAN * 444 CEDAR STREET PETER B. TIEDE JAMES F. BALDWIN JANE M. HILL C. TODD KOEBELE SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 MARK D. COVIN MICHAEL P. TIERNEY n } y KERRY 0. ATKINSON DANIEL A. HAWS * TELEPHONE: (612) 227 - 9411 nw'�,y 6•.rQ� l �,t yc�jtWil�', r * ALSO ADMITTED IN WILLIAM L. MORAN TELECOPIER (612) 223 - 5199 WISCONSIN December 7, 1995 DEC 11 1995 * * AL SO DAKOTA IN E . WILLARD MURNANE (1907 -1976) CHARLES R. MURNANE Nancy Anderson, (19131982) Assistant City Council Secretary St. Paul City Hall 170 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: The license of C.L. Hinze, Inc., d /b /a Chuck's Bar City Council File No. 95 -1398 Our File No. 41002 Dear Anderson: Enclosed please find a copy of the Motion that was served upon the Clerk of City Hall yesterday, with a courtesy copy was served on Mr. Byrne. We have agreed with Mr. Byrne to request that this matter be placed on the City Council agenda for Wednesday, December 20, 1995. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Yours v ruly, Thomas J Norby TJN /nfh Enc. cc: Mr. Phil Byrne, Assistant City Attorney (by U.S. Mail w/o enc. ) ESTABLISHED 1940 \ MURNANE „� CONLIN • THOMAS M. CONLIN • M R `A `y • CONL , • WHITE & BRANDT ° S ` t `t ROBERT W. MURNANE THOMAS A. GILLIGAN, JR. ROBERT T. WHITE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION DAVIDC.ANASTASI JOEL D. HEDBERG JOHN E. BRANDT • THOMAS J. NORBY JOHN D. HIRTE STEVEN 1. KIRSCH ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANNE F. BAKER KAMMEY M. K. MAHOWALD •• ANDREW T. SHERN 1800 PIPER ]AFFRAY PLAZA NICOLE B. SURGES MICHAEL S. RYAN • 444 CEDAR STREET PETER B. TIEDE JAMES F. BALDWIN JANE M. HILL C. TODD KOEBELE SALNT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101 MARK D. COVIN MICHAEL P. TIERNEY TELEPHONE: (612) 227.9411 KERRY 0. ATKINSON DANIEL A. HAWS • WILLIAM L. MORAN 'ALSO ADMITTED IN TELECOPIER (612) 223.5199 WISCONSIN December 6, 1995 "AISOADMtTTEDIN NORTH DAKOTA PERSONALLY SERVED E. WILLAR NE (1907-1976) CHARLES R. MURNANE City Clerk (1913-1982) 170 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: The license of C.L. Hinze, Inc., d /b /a Chuck's Bar City Council File No. 95 -1398 Our File No. 41002 Dear Clerk: Enclosed and hereby personally served upon you please find Licensee's Motion for Stay of Revocation in the above - entitled matter. We request to be heard by the City Council on this matter at the earliest possible opportunity. A courtesy copy of Licensee's Motion is being personally delivered to Mr. Byrne as of the date of this correspondence. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Yours v y t uly, .1 6. Thomas J. C orby TJN /nf Enc. cc: . Phil Byrne, Assistant City Attorney (Hand Delivered w /enc.) RECEIVED DEC C 6 1995 CITY ATTORNEY F cT1 /JJ.c J(.-J( From: Phil Byrne (BYRNE) To: COUNCIL:NANCYA, COUNCIL:JERRYB, COUNCIL:ANNC, COUNCIL:JOEC, COUNCIL:MARIEG, COUN Date: Monday, December 4, 1995 3:56 pm Subjectchuck's Bar Members of the Council, Aides, and Nancy Anderson -- The Court of Appeals has issued a order staying the revocation of the Chuck's Bar license pending appeal, but on certain conditions. The attorney for the licensee must file a request for the City Council to stay the revocation, and do that on or before December 7, 1995. If he does not, then the stay expires. If the motion or request for a stay is filed, then the Court of Appeals stay remains in effect until the Council deals with it: The order says: "If relator (licensee) files a motion with the city council for a stay by December 7, 1995, the stay shall remain in effect until the city council issues a written decision determining whther a stay is appropriate and the terms of any stay." The last time this issue occurred, the City Council denied the stay and the Court of Appeals issued a stay itself, but remanded the case to the City Council to set additional terms and conditions of the stay (which you did do, and which were upheld by the Court of Appeals). I would suggest that when (and if) the motion is filed, assuming it is on or before December 7, that it be put on the Council agenda for the 13th. Someone from our office will appear to represent LIEP and to make recommendations to the Council as to a course action, and no doubt the attorney for the licensee will appear. It should not take very long to deal with this. If you have further questions, I would suggest that you call Tim Marx or John McCormick. Phil CC: Marx, McCormic, License:Kessler q5 — ►ktwy BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA IN RE: THE LICENSES OF MOTION FOR A STAY C.L. HINZE, INC., D /B /A OF LICENSE REVOCATION CHUCK'S BAR COUNCIL FILE NO. 95 -1398 TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA AND TIMOTHY E. MARX, CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL We are the legal counsel for the above mentioned licensee, and our client has requested us to appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals the action of the St. Paul City Council which revoked our client's City Licenses effective November 30, 1995. An appeal was in fact filed on December 1, 1995, and the Court of Appeals has stayed the revocation until such time as the City Council has heard and determined the licensee's request for a stay pending appeal by order dated December 4, 1995. We hereby move the City Council of the City of St. Paul to stay the imposition of the license revocation until the licensee's appeal is heard and decided by the Minnesota Court of Appeals pursuant to Minn. Stat. §14.65. Licensee hereby requests to be heard by the City Council concerning this motion at the earliest possible opportunity. The basis for requesting a stay of the revocation until the appeal is decided is as follows: 1. If the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirms the decision of the St. Paul City Council, the revocation can begin after the appellate procedure is completed and that would constitute the same adverse result to our client if the revocation was immediately effective. 2. Our client would have no legal redress for his lost business if his liquor license is revoked immediately, and thereafter the Minnesota Court of Appeals reverses the City Council's action in imposing the revocation. 3. There will be no greater (or lesser) harm to the members of the public if the City Council stays the revocation until this appeal is decided by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. 4. No doubt the City disagrees, but there is a likelihood that the bar will prevail on appeal. The revocation is based on the "facts" that the owner committed a serious and violent assault upon an intoxicated and vulnerable patron. None of these facts find any support in the record. The only adverse finding was that the owner placed his hands around the patron's neck as her ejected her. It is doubtful that this finding, to the extent it is upheld, would justify revocation. 5. There are no policy reasons to deny the stay. The bar is entitled to take an appeal like any other aggrieved party in an administrative proceeding. In the absence of a stay, the bar will suffer months of lost income, and will essentially serve its sentence, only to find at the end of the process that it was justified, assuming the bar prevails on appeal. See M.R.Crim.R. 28.02 sub. 7(1). 6. There are no administrative burdens to the City in granting the stay. Based on the foregoing, we hereby request the City Council of the City of St. Paul to stay the revocation until our client's appeal is heard and decided by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In the event the Council does not grant the requested stay, it is our intention to /request the Minnesota Court of Appeals to extend its present order staying the revocation. As a matter of courtesy, the licensee asks that any resolution by the City Council denying the stay become effective 14 days after the date of the resolution so that licensee will have time to bring a similar motion before the Court of Appeals. MURNANE, � CONLI , ITE & BRANDT By � i/ ThomaS J. No'rby #184780 1800 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 227 -9411