94-1238 �' ,,,,�� Cou ncil File # 9
ORIGINAL Ordinance #
Green Sheet # / / °
ORDINANCE
CITY OF ' AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA g v
Presented By 0 0 ( .7. .c,
Referred To Committee: Date
1
2
3
4 ordinance
5 an int. rim morato
6 to nform to G
()slit
7 pre 'ously -exp
10
11 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY oF SAIN-
12
13
14 �I� 0
15
16
17 Section 2 of Council File # ! 93 -471, adopted by the Council May 20, 1993,
18 approved by the Mayor May 25, 1' 93, and published May 29, 1993, is hereby amended to
19 read as follows:
20
21 "Pending the completion of his study and for purpose of prohibiting any
22 development that might be 1 consistent with the outcome of these pending
23 studies, and for a period of ime not to exceed one year from the date of the
24 adoption of this interim or. nance, no firearm business shall be located within
25 1000 feet of a "protected us including a school (public, parochial or private
26 elementary, junior high or ii gh school); a day care center; a house of worship; a
27 public library; a public regi I nal park or parkway, public park, public recreation
28 center. Notwithstanding th's restriction, 04 any currently licensed firearms
29 business may continue thro gh the term of the license, and upon expiration such
:5 { { C :. ; Y ; i: ? :
30 license may be renewed by . e City Coun q' ':.•:::' :'`::: ': > `' s c e
: :. �.:: :.. .... t.......:...... ..w:.. :.;.:i ::.:.: :•::. �::: •::; :•. :•:..> i • :-: i:• i:r;:; a::•; � •;:;; i:::•:;•;::••:•••::•;:;;;;• i:<•: :.<. Y.�::•r :• "r::. >:•::•::•:.:•:. >• •:•::•:;• >:•::•::•i:•::•::•
31 d bite << d o tai""t .:<t : it edoarba or
32 a > : .:.::...::......:::: .: :: of >:b :::: u : 00t141:4 , t5imoriattIEnu i ::;ordhe:: >rest .hfro
33 eta :<: e . and sueI i:FilfelSRWMISSRMERIVEIRIMMIgNMOY
34 gpmodifitkansiNglog"
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
- 18
L2 6
CD 7
8 Section 2
9
10 The amendment contained .n Section 1 shall have retroactive effect and be
11 construed to have been enacted at the same time as, and being in full force and effect as
12 of the effective date of, Council File # 93 -471, which was June 28, 1993.
13
14
15 Section 3
16
17 This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days following its
18 passage, approval and publication.
Blake Yeas Nays Ab ent Requested by Department of:
Harris
Grimm
Guerin
Me and
Kettman
Thune By:
Adopted by Council: Date Form Approved by City Attorney
Adoption Certified by Council Secretory B
B y : Approved by Mayor for Submission to
Approved by Mayor: Date
Council
By:
By:
q, -/23
DEPARTMENT/OFFICE /COUNCIL DATI INITIATED
City Council GREEN SHEET N? 19920:
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE INITIAL/DATE INITIAL/DATE —
El DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR n CITY COUNCIL
Dino Guerin ASE GN E CITY ATTORNEY ❑ CITY CLERK
NUWtER FOR
MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) ROUTING n BUDGET DIRECTOR ❑ FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR.
August 24, 1994 ORDER I I MAYOR (OR ASSISTANT)
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIF ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Consideration and passage of an amendment to Council File No. 93 -471 (the "firearms
license moratorium ordinance ")
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) PSRSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
PLANNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
_ CIB COMMITTEE YES NO
2 Has this person /firm ever been a city employee?
STAFF _
YES NO
_ DISTRICT COURT 3 Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee?
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, What, When, Where, Why)
A recent decision of the district orourt found that the failure to provide a specific
exemption in April -May of 1993, in Council File No. 93 -471, for pending firearms
license applications, invalidated th.e license of the Saint Firearms Company.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
It will eliminate City liability emosure to suit by the ,Saint Paul Firearms Company.
Some would discribe the continued licensure of the Comppny at its present location as
an advantage.
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
Some would describe the continued Licensure of the Saint Firearms Company at its
present location as a disadvantage.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
The City will be subject to the possibility of suit on behalf of the Saint Paul
Firearms Company.
Gam Research Center
AUG 18 1994
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST /REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN)
•
TE M Aik 3s
SENT Bx: 9- 6 -94 13 :06 ; MN. STATE SENATE- 6126414041 ;# 2/ 2
917,, y
ELLEN R. ANDERSON
Senator District 66
Room G -27
State Capitol Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296 -5537 Senate
September 6, 1994 State of Minnesota
TO: Members of the ity Council
FROM: Senator Ellen derson
RE: Proposed Resolu ion on Gun Shops
Dear Members of the City ouncil:
I urge the members of thejCity Council to reject the proposed
resolution which would ex = Mr. Perkins from the gunshop
moratorium.
First, the court has made it clear that under the 1993
Legislature, the city is ell within its authority to regulate
the location of gun shops
Second, as elected city o ficials, you all are acutely aware how
important it is to mainta n property values and the quality of
life in St. Paul. I repr'sent the Midway area but also a number
of other St. Paul neighbo hoods, which I know feel as strongly
that this type of business does not belong near children.
Making an exception to a aw for the purpose of making it easier
to sell guns in the city 6f St. Paul sends the wrong message at
a time when violence is s ch a serious concern to our city.
Finally, the most prudent and fiscally reasonable thing for the
city to do is to accept t e court's ruling and let the appeal
proceed. Please do not s eject St. Paul taxpayers to new,
unnecessary lawsuits.
,Sincerely,
Ellen Anderson
State Senator
is COMMITTEES • Vice Chair, Cri Prevention • Jobs, Energy, and Community Development •
Reorw Aapm _
107r ry,r, Commerce and Consume Protection • Environment and Natural Resources
CVIISUI11, hher SUBCOMMITTEE Chair, Economic Development and Housing ..
•
JAMES P. LARKIN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. DANIEL L. BOWLES
ROBERT HOFFMAN P T T O R N E Y S AT LAW TIMOTHY J. KEANE
JACK F. NE
F. DALY
D. KENNETH LINDGREN ALAN M. ANDERSON
GERALD H. FRIEDELL DONNA L. ROBACK
ALLAN E. MULLIGAN MICHAEL W. SCHLEY
JAMES C. ERICKSON LISA A. GRAY
EDWARD J. DRISCOLL 1 500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER GARY A. RENNEKE
GENE N. FULLER CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL
JOHN D. FULLMER 1 900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH MICHAEL A. ROBERTSON
ROBERT E. BOYLE BRUCE J. DOUGLAS
FRANK I. HARVEY BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR.
CHARLES S. MODELL JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN TELEPHONE (61 2) 835-3800 DANIEL W. VOSS
JOHN R. BEATTIE JOHN R. HILL
LINDA H. FISHER FAX (612) 896 -3333 PETER J. COYLE
THOMAS P. STOLTMAN MICHAEL J. SMITH
MICHAEL C. JACKMAN VIUS R. INDE
JOHN E. DIEHL DWIGHT N. HOLMBO
JON S. SWIERZEWSKI ANDREW F. PERRIN
THOMAS J. FLYNN ANN M. MEYER
JAMES P. QUINN FREDERICK K. HAUSER III
TODD I. FREEMAN LARRY D. MARTIN
PETER K. BECK JANE E. BREMER
JEROME H. KAHNKE RENEE L. TOENGES
GERALD L. SECK MARCY R. KREISMAN
JOHN B. LUNDQUIST MARIEL E. PIILOLA
DAYLE NOI.AN• DAMON E. SCHRAMM
THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR. STEPHEN J. KAMINSKI
JOHN A. COTTER RACHAEL A. JAROSH
BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER
PAUL B. PLUNKETT OF COUNSEL
ALAN L. KILDOW WENDELL R. ANDERSON
KATHLEEN M. NEWMAN JOSEPH GITIS
MICHAEL B. LEBARON MARK A. RURIK
GREGORY E. KORSTAD
GARY A. VAN CLEVE• ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN
September 7, 1994
Saint Paul City Councilmembers
City of Saint Paul
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Re: Hamline- Midway Neighborhooc Stability
Coalition, et al v. St. Paul City Council,
City of St. Paul, and St Paul Firearms Co.
Our File No.: 20,912 -00
Dear Councilmembers:
As you know, I represent St. PE.ul Firearms Co., and Gregg A. Perkins
regarding the above - captioned natter.
This morning we received a copy of a memorandum submitted to you by the
Hamline- Midway Neighborhood Stability Coalition (Coalition) in opposition
to a proposed resolution being considered by the city council which, if
adopted, would exclude St. Paul Firearms Co., from the moratorium ordinance
adopted by the City some time ago. The purpose of this letter is to
respond to the memorandum and to speak in favor of the adoption of the
proposed resolution.
Specifically, the city council should favorably consider the proposed
resolution because St. Paul Firearms Co., is legally entitled under the law
to operate its firearms business, and to preserve the integrity of the city
council's legislative process. These arguments are set forth more fully
below.
•
LARKIN, H. FMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. u 3 "
Saint Paul City Councilmembers
September 7, 1994
Page 2
A. ST. PAUL FIREARMS CO., HAS ' LEGAL RIGHT TO OPERATE ITS BUSINESS.
The relevant factual backgroun• is set forth in the Affidavit of Gregg
Perkins which is attached here•o as Exhibit A. My client believes that he
has a legal right to operate h' firearms business based upon the legal
doctrines of preemption, veste• rights, and promissory estoppel.
Minnesota state law preempts m nicipal regulation of my client's firearms
business. Specifically, Minn. Stat. § 471.633 provides as follows:
The legislature preempts a 1 authority of a home rule, charter
or statutory city includin• a city of the first class, county,
town, municipal corporatio , or other governmental subdivision,
or any of their instrument-lities, to regulate firearms,
ammunition, or their respective components to the complete
exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them except
that:
a. A governmental s may regulate the discharge
of firearms; and
b. A governmental subdivision may adopt regulations
identical to stale law.
Local regulation inconsist:nt with this section is void.
By operation of law, the city .rdinance to the extent it purports to
require my client to obtain a firearms license is void. Although a
municipality may adopt a reaso able, nondiscriminatory, nonarbitrary zoning
ordinance regulating the locat'on of such businesses, the City has chosen
not to do so at this point.
B. VESTED RIGHTS AND PROMISSO•Y ESTOPPEL.
My client has vested rights to operate its firearms business because it
incurred substantial expenditures in reliance upon representations made by
the city council at a meeting cf the Human Services, Health and Business
Regulation Committee of the Sa nt Paul City Council, and at the full city
council meeting that the inter m moratorium ordinance did not apply to
St. Paul Firearms Co. Rid•ewocd Develo•ment Com•an v. State,
294 N.W.2d 288 (1990). Subse• ently, it was issued a license by the City
in October, 1993, and it opener for business in early November, 1993.
My client was told that the moratorium excluded it from coverage and that
it need not do anything furthe.. The City issued a permit consistent with
the representations made at th= council meeting regarding the moratorium
ordinance. In reliance on tho-e representations, and the issuance of the
LARKIN, Ho FMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Saint Paul City Councilmembers
September 7, 1994
Page 3
permit, my client opened and o.-rated its firearms business. The City is
estopped to deny my client's r'•hts to operate the business.
Closing St. Paul Firearms Co.'- firearms business has and continues to have
a catastrophic effect upon the company and upon Gregg Perkins. In essence,
the firearms business is his 1' elihood and sole source of income.
C. INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS.
My client likes doing business in Saint Paul. This is the place where he
has established his business, .1d wants to earn a livelihood.
The city council told Mr. Perk at both a committee meeting and the full
council meeting that his busin =ss would not be covered by the moratorium
ordinance. Given the nature o: the meeting and the public setting, my
client acted reasonably in rel ing on the representations of the
councilmembers.
Both the city council and the • blic ought to take pride in the legislative
processes conducted by the Cit . No one can take pride in a system where
specific representations made •k the city council to the public become
twisted by others into hollow, empty words devoid of any meaning. Rather,
legislative integrity requires that the words spoken are true and the
process honorable. In fact, t - City has a legal duty to correct an
injustice that has occurred. Ile City should amend the moratorium to
reflect its true intent.
D. CONCLUSION.
The city council will obviousl seek the advice of its City Attorney
regarding the legal merits of • r claim. However, the City must look to
the integrity of its legislati - process. Upon doing so, we are confident
that the city council will ado.t the proposed resolution.
Sincerely,
Christopher J. ietzen, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGRD', Ltd.
bh
CJD:BVOs
a ._
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT FILE NO. C2 -93 -13361
Hamline- Midway Neighborho7d
Stability Coalition, Jodi
Bantley, Joette Hamann,
William Maloney, and Laura
Melnick,
Plaintiffs,
v. AFFIDAVIT OF GREGG A. PERKINS
St. Paul City Council, City of
St. Paul, and St. Paul
Firearms Co.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Gregg A. Perkins, being duly sworn on oath, deposes and
says:
1. My name is Gregg A. Perkins and I am the President of
St. Paul Firearms Co., a Minnesota corporation, and one of the
Defendants in the above - captioned matter. I am competent to
testify as to the matters stated herein which are based on my
own personal knowledge.
2. In approximately February, 1993, at the request of the
City of Saint Paul, Defendant St. Paul Firearms Co., applied
for a firearms license fat' the premises located at 634 Snelling
Avenue North, Saint Paul, Minnesota. The City application
process required that St. Paul Firearms Co., and myself go
through a background check and have the premises inspected by
9 1a3r
the applicable departments of the City including the building
inspector, fire marshall, and certain security requirements of
the State of Minnesota. As a result, St. Paul Firearms Co.,
invested substantial time and substantial expenditures as part
of the application process.
3. At the time of the filing of the application, I was
advised by a representative of the City Licensing Department
that the application process would take approximately 30 days.
However, the process was delayed by the Licensing Department of
the City of Saint Paul.
4. In early April, 1993, St. Paul Firearms Co.'s
application was determineld to be complete, and city staff
recommended that it be approved.
5. As stated in my affidavit of April 1, 1994, I attended
a meeting of the Human Services, Health and Business Regulation
Committee, a committee of the Saint Paul city council chaired
by Councilmember Paula Maccabee with Councilmembers Maria Grimm
and Bob Long present, and, a 5:00 p.m., meeting of the full
Saint Paul city council which had all members present.
6. My purpose in attending the committee meeting was to
express my opposition to the proposed interim moratorium and to
express my view that the moratorium was being considered by the
council as a method to terminate my pending firearms
application. When I rose to address the committee, I expressed
my concern that the moratorium was being proposed to terminate
my pending firearms application. I was stopped by
Councilmember Long who irdicated that the ordinance was not
2.
intended to apply to my application and that I need not do
anything further. I was not allowed to speak further on the
proposed moratorium. I vas not allowed to speak or inquire any
further.
7. As a result of the exchange between Councilmember Long
and myself at the committee meeting, it was my understanding
that the proposed interim moratorium did not apply to my
pending firearms application.
8. I also attended the full city council meeting which
also considered the interim moratorium as well as my pending
firearms application. During the course of the meeting,
Council President Wilson made it clear that the pending
moratorium ordinance did not apply to my application. None of
the councilmembers disagreed with Council President Wilson. It
was clear that all councilmembers and the City Attorney agreed
with these statements. Based upon the representations at the
committee meeting and the council meeting, it was my
understanding that St. Paul Firearms Co., had an agreement with
the City that the moratorium ordinance specifically excluded
them. St. Paul Firearms Co., and I relied upon those
representations and took no further action. At that time I was
not represented by legal counsel. Had I known that the
moratorium was to apply to my pending application, I would have
exercised my rights to eYpress my opposition to the moratorium
and that it was being adopted in bad faith as a ruse to
terminate my firearms application.
3.
9. At the conclusio' of the discussion of my pending
firearms application, the city council advised me that it would
be referred to an adminis rative law judge for the Office of
Administrative Hearings for the purpose of determining whether
my application complied w th the existing city ordinance.
10. In late October, 1993, the City granted my firearms
application. St. Paul Fi earms Co., opened for business in
early November, 1993, and has operated continuously up until
5:00 p.m., on August 12, 994, when we were served with a copy
of the Ramsey County Dist Court's Amended Order dated that
same date.
11. Closing St. Paul Firearms Co.'s operation regarding
the sale of guns and ammu ition has and will have a
catastrophic effect on the business and upon my personally. In
essence, the firearms business is my livelihood and sole source
of income. Although I ha e an antique license, the gross
revenues for that operation are insignificant.
11 "'" - ta.a".4474_,
G A. erkins
Subscrijed and s orn to . =fore me
this Vol--day of 4 ` y2461/ , 1994.
• ^
Notary Puii is
`% CHRISTOPHER
f NOTARY PUBLIC M ILAN 3
My Commission Expires
January 31. 2000
CJD:BR4s
4.
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
C CDV COURT FILE NO. C2 -93 -13361
O
10. Other Civil:
Certiorari
Hamline- Midway Neighborhood
Stability Coalition, Jodi Bantley,
Joette Hamann, William Maloney,
and Laura Melnick,
Petitioners /Plaintiffs, AFFIDAVIT OF
PHILIP B. BYRNE
vs.
St. Paul City Council, City of
St. Paul, and St. Paul Firearms Co.,
Respondents /Defendants.
Philip B. Byrne, being sworn, states:
I am an assistant cite' attorney for the City of Saint Paul,
and represent the defendants in this case. I make this affidavit in
opposition to the motion oe the plaintiffs for summary judgment.
On April 22, 1993, I attended a 2:00 p.m. meeting of the Human
Services, Health and Business Regulation Committee, a committee of
the Saint Paul City Council chaired by councilmember Paula
Maccabee, with councilmembers Marie Grimm and Bob Long present. The
Committee considered the moratorium ordinance which is attached to
the defendant's Memorandum in Opposition.
The ordinance was sponsored by Ms. Maccabee.
At the outset Ms. Maccabee stated that the moratorium
ordinance was not going tO operate retroactively to apply to any
business which has already applied for a license. She specifically
and clearly repeated those statements, indicating that the Council
would deal with businessed which had already applied for a license
on their own merits, and one would be before the Council that
evening.
Joette Hamann, one of the plaintiffs, appeared in support of
the moratorium ordinance, ,but noted that it came too late to deal
with the existing application.
Mr. Perkins rose later and explicitly asked whether this
ordinance stemmed from his application. Ms. Maccabee repeated that
the ordinance is not targeted at any specific business, and
repeated that the moratorium ordinance does not affect your
(Perkins') business.
Mr. Long stated to Mr. Perkins that clearly this moratorium
ordinance cannot apply to, your license, because you have already
applied for a license. Ks. Grimm did not dissent from those
statements.
I viewed the videotape of this meeting before preparing this
affidavit.
Later that day, at the 5:00 p.m. meeting of the City Council,
the Council gave extensivle consideration to the Perkins license
application. I also watch,-?.d the videotape of that meeting before
preparing this affidavit.
The Council took testimony from persons opposing and
supporting the Perkins application for a firearms license, and
decided at the conclusion of the testimony to refer the license
application for an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law
judge. Shortly before the vote was taken to refer the matter for
hearing, Council PresidentWilson stated that a question had arisen
earlier (but did not sta e when) as to the applicability of a
pending (moratorium) ordi to the Perkins license. He stated
that he would not speak f.r Councilmember Maccabee, but that the
Council could not make th- 'ordinance retroactive. The clear import
of his remarks was that th moratorium ordinance would not apply to
the Perkins license, but hat the license would be decided on the
basis of the contested ca a process.
-All the council membe s were in attendance at the meeting that
evening, and no member d sagreed with or disputed Mr. Wilson's
statements as to the cove age of the moratorium ordinance.
Several plaintiffs we e in attendance and testified. earlier as
to their views on the P-rkins license application. No witness
contested the question of the applicability of the ordinance. 186
Philip . Byrne
State of Minnesota)
County of Ramsey )ss.
Subscribed and swor to before me this / L
day of April,
1994.
,rte Notary Public
I: iJJjAMAAMNIMI `
( PAUL r McCLOSKEY
�►r. NOTARY at;E;.tC- MAtiESOTC
RAMSE" COUNTY
by Co :nr sicr, Exotr :U''.i? 't..
SENT B 9- 6 -94 13 ;06 ; MN. STATE SENATE- 6126414041 ;# 2/ 2
L a 3 8"
ELLEN R. ANDERSON
Senator District 66
Room G -27
State Capitol Building
2J, MN 55155 1SS
(612) Senate
(hl2) 296-5537
September 6, 1994 State of Minnesota
TO Members of the ,ity Council
FROM: Senator Ellen , derson
RE: Proposed Resol ion on Gun Shops
Dear Members of the City ouncil:
I urge the members of th ='City Council to reject the proposed
resolution which would e. Mr. Perkins from the gunshop
moratorium.
First, the court has mad - it clear that under the 1993
Legislature, the city is ell within its authority to regulate
the location of gun shop=.
Second, as elected city •.ficials, you all are acutely aware how
important it is to maint• n property values and the quality of
life in St. Paul. I rep -sent the Midway area but also a number
of other St. Paul neig ...hoods, which I know feel as strongly
that this type of busine does not belong near children.
Making an exception to a 'aw for the purpose of making it easier
to sell guns in the city ;•f St. Paul sends the wrong message at
a time when violence is : ch a serious concern to our city.
Finally, the most pruden. fiscally reasonable thing for the
city to do is to accept •.e court's ruling and let the appeal
proceed. Please do not = eject St. Paul taxpayers to new,
unnecessary lawsuits.
Sincerely,
Ellen Anderson
State Senator
tot) COMMITTEES • Vice Chair, Cri e Prevention • Jobs, Energy, and Community Development •
Recycled Paler
1044. li.rsl. Commerce and Consume Protection • Environment and Natural Resources
eIMYWMM/ Fiber SUBCOMMITTEE : • Chair, Economic Development and Hovsino - . -