Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Service/Safety
Standby Committee - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 4:00 p.m.

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Service/Safety Standby Committee met in the council chambers in City Hall on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. Present at roll call were Council Members Kreun, chair; Bakken, McNamara, and ex-officio member Gershman.

Others present were: Howard Swanson, John Warcup, Chief Packett, Pete Haga, Al Grasser, Earl Haugen, members of Hospitality Assn.,

1. Noisy party and alcohol related ordinance penalties.
Chairman Kreun stated he would like to have the ordinance portion for penalties separated into alcohol related and noisy party, that they are gathering information to determine if there is a need to change the penalty phases in our ordinances.

Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated that last night the council eliminated the minimum mandatory sentence for first offense for loud party, and that their recommendation is to leave it alone as to a second offense and allow the judge to use his/her discretion based upon the circumstances of the event. The penalty for a loud party is a misdemeanor penalty, is punishable by fine of up to $1,000.00 and/or 30 days in jail. The court, in his opinion, demonstrated great leadership and great discretion in meting out penalties for the violations of loud party ordinance, whether first offense, second offense or subsequent offense and with regard to Municipal Court violations if it is a multiple offense, second or their offense, the penalties escalate; and in addition to that anything that was suspended for an earlier offense is now enforced. He stated there had been discussion of imposing a $750 minimum for a second offense, from the prospect of the city attorney's office that is too high as a mandatory minimum, and their position on the loud party ordinance for a second offense they think the Court is the appropriate place to discern the facts, they will be able to determine the attitude of the individual that is convicted is, if repentant or if other issues involved the Court can take that into consideration. He stated they have hear the concern expressed by a number of people, students and non-students, as to the impact of minimum mandatory sentences, and doesn't see there is whole lot of distinction by going to the second offense. To his knowledge nobody has come forward to committee and told you that Municipal Court is not addressing the issue appropriately or that people are being slapped on the wrist and said, don't violate again - in fact he thought the opposite is true.

McNamara stated he has heard that Municipal Court is too tough and that is why these things transfer to District Court, and asked why that is happening and if District Court is an easier place to deal with it. Mr. Swanson stated they essentially have a transfer to District Court, that Kristi Pettit or John Warcup could give first hand experience; and his observation is that people will transfer matters to District Court with the hope of prolonging the prosecution, of potentially getting a jury trial and having a jury acquit them or even if plead guilty or are found guilty that perhaps the District Court judge will impose a different sentence; that if transferred to District Court part of the fine and part of the administrative fee goes to the State and not to the City of Grand Forks, and if that is the concern you have, then in establishing a $750 min. mandatory fine isn't going to solve that problem and the other question it will raise, is whether or not District Court will enforce the Municipal Court penalty, and in his opinion the District Court is obligated to do so but there is a difference of opinion on that and has not been litigated by the Supreme Court.

McNamara asked why attorney's transfer there. Mr. Swanson stated he gave three reasons: 1) hope that draw it out and City make mistake procedurally or decide not to prosecute; 2) hope to get a jury verdict that would be more favorable, or 3) convince District Court judge to impose a different sentence. He stated in some cases that the District Court penalty is higher than Municipal Court, and would like to have the District Court judge is recognize that, have their imposition of sentence at a higher level than Municipal Court to discourage that, but we don't have the ability to control the District Court judge. He stated that other than saying you're tough from the city council's perspective, doesn't know that will accomplish by increasing the second offense other than tying the hands of the municipal court judge, who might even find a circumstance that warrants penalty greater than that.

Mr. Swanson stated re. loud party ordinance, will find over the last year an increase in the number of transfers to District Court from Municipal Court because of the minimum mandatory sentence; the higher you push that min. mandatory knowing that Municipal Court can no longer impose a deferred imposition of sentence, you give incentive for people to challenge and fight.

Bakken stated on the second offense on loud party, would like to see what the Municipal Court is doing on sentencing, and if can run down for the last 6 months on second offense for loud party. Mr. Swanson stated they can provide that information if it exists - stated that the normal sentence for the first offense on loud party is a fine of $200.00 plus adm. fees and 2 days in jail with the 2 days in jail suspended, and beyond that the Court has in instances of multiple offenses, increased that fine and penalty, but to tell you what the impositions have been over the last 6 months for a second offense, doesn't know if have had a second offense but is information they can get.

The recommendation from the city attorney is to leave regulations as they are. Mr. Swanson stated that if the situation were that you determined that the Court was not being responsive or responsible towards multiple offenders, then look to the higher minimum mandatory and is not sure that we have that situation here, is convinced that we don't. Kreun stated that there has been a lot of discussion and notoriety and enforcement has stepped up with the ability to remove the individuals from the party or situation at the time, and that has created a lot of good will in the neighborhoods and a lot of discussion in the other party of the community so leave well enough along unless problem indicated. Mr. Swanson stated that the maximum penalty for a misdemeanor was changed by this council a couple years ago to $1,000 fine where it used to be up to a $500.00, and that is reaching a pretty significant criminal penalty.

McNamara asked if what we have on the books today a deterrent, non-factor to the alcohol related offenses in this community. Mr. Swanson asked if they would allow him to separate out the DUI offenses because they are classified as alcohol related offense and there are 10 different violations that can be imposed for alcohol related offenses, many are similar or companion-type offenses: manufacturing of false i.d., possession of a false i.d., minor in possession of alcohol, minor consuming alcohol, minor purchasing alcohol, minor attempting to purchase alcohol, procurement of alcohol for minors, furnishing of money for the purchase of alcohol by or for minors, minor on licensed premise, and minor using a false i.d. All of those offenses are misdemeanor criminal offenses punishable by the max. fine of up to $1,000 per incident or conviction and/or 30 days in jail. The they do not have the authority to impose any fine or sentence greater than what you have on the books now for those offenses.

Mr. Swanson stated he has asked rhetorically the question of some of you re. min. mandatories and mandatory scheduled counties in the course of discussion, and his question has beem ,what are you trying to solve, and do you know what the penalties being imposed in Municipal Court are right now, and Judge Eslinger and is not new to his court, but has taken it a step further than previous municipal court judges, has an actual guidelines for his sentencing, not mandated by law, for example, minor consuming alcohol, if it is related to use or occupancy of a vehicle, the first offense is $300 fine plus adm. costs and 2 days in jail, normally suspended; if it is a second offense in a period of 2 years he will revoke the suspension of the 2 day jail time, will serve the 2 days, and will have an additional fine of $500 plus adm. costs and 4 additional days of jail of which he may suspend those additional 4 days; if it is a third offense in 2 years he increases the fine to a min. of $700 plus adm. expenses, revoking the prior suspension of jail time and imposing up to an additional 6 days of jail. If it is a non-vehicle related, he distinguishes between use driving and occupying a vehicle as a minor and having possession of alcohol outside a vehicle. Those offenses are similar but slightly lower and has a min. fine of $200 plus adm. expenses and 2 days in jail for the first offense and they increase thereafter to $300 and $500 and 4 days and 6 days in jail In general discussions with some of the larger cities we find that what Municipal Court in Grand Forks is doing is very similar or higher that what some of the other communities are doing for offenses that are prosecuted in Municipal Court, and in those instances the Judge has the ability to determine the facts of circumstances, to judge the demeanor of the minor but what goes into Municipal Court is a juvenile between the ages of 18 and 21, below 18 those individuals, unless other circumstances, will normally go through Juvenile Court, and that is information that is not available to the public. He listed several other offenses with fines; and what he is suggesting is that he has not been made aware of concerns that Municipal Court is not taking alcohol issues with the appropriate concern, thinks Municipal Court is and requires the appropriate level of proof to prosecute those cases, that they are prosecuting those cases and have a reasonable conviction rate. Kreun asked if they could get a copy of the judge's guidelines.
Bakken asked if there is information available, could also get guidelines for loud party offenses and second offenses.

Mr. Swanson stated it is important when you’re looking at major policy changes and some of the suggestions he has read, that he has read all of the minutes, e-mails, proposals and that he has serious concerns about some proposals, and asked rhetorical question of what trying to solve.
Kreun stated that one of the things was that server training ordinance was that sometimes minors, because 17 and under, and local business owners don't feel that there is enough being done, or they are being punished more than the people who are actually trying to break the law, and that if the business owner is going to be punished to a higher degree then the people who are trying to break and are breaking the law should be punished to a higher degree as well. He stated we are targeted as one of the higher communities for binge drinking and alcohol related offenses and in other communities around us, they have had serious consequences, couple deaths, and want to be pro-active and as city council we have a limited ability to control a lot of this; most of the alcohol related scenarios come from other than sales of liquor establishments, most comes from homes, friends, relatives, etc. and we can't control that, and may just stepped up enforcement, as we did with the noisy parties. This came as what can we do as city council to help curb these issues.

Mr. Swanson stated that was why he itemized some of the various offenses, that there are many people that believe the only charges that can occur are minor consuming or minor in possession and nothing else either carries a criminal penalty or can be prosecuted or will be prosecuted. He stated that the criminal prosecution of adult procuring alcohol for minors is difficult getting the evidence, most minors won't tell you who purchased it, but where they have that evidence and is at time available and sometimes determined, those are prosecuted. The prosecution of minors on the premises occurs, that he has provided each of you with an outline of the prosecutions that the City has forwarded to the A.G.'s Office of the establishments that have illegally sold, and there is not establishment that has been unfairly focused upon or targeted for prosecution. the vast majority of our license holders in this community are in full compliance with the law and do a very good job, there are some that have done less and are still in performance and others that have been prosecuted for one time violations and have readily admitted those violations and made their corrections, and to suggest that the licensed alcohol industry is not culpable wouldn't be accurate but to say they are not responsive to the concern is also not accurate. He stated that everyone of the arguments he read in your minutes, is the third time around that he has heard these and that when ask the hard question of them, that you will not get specifics or instances where there has either been a refusal to violate when there is clear evidence of a violation or that there really is a concern to violate. He stated he is not suggesting that they are going to go out on every nit picking violation of all of our Code is going to result in prosecution of a licensed premise; that if there are concerns with sales or procurement to minors, minors on the premises, minors obtaining alcohol through illegal means, etc. he doesn't know of anyone in the police department, in the city prosecutor's office or the city attorney's office that isn't committed to following through with the prosecution, and the tools for them to do that already exist in our Code, but what he is concerned about and what sends an improper message and suggests that we aren't serious is that when we say that we're going to create immunities for licensed establishments and not going to take first, second or third violation except for certain minor steps, a warning, a minimal fine, etc. and thinks you need to maintain flexibility that if you have a serious violation that you have the ability to suspend the license or revoke a license, very unusual to do on first offense, but doesn't want them to preclude that, never happened but it certainly is possible, the license holder would tear to a one time big time blow out party with minors, and if that occurs, don't you want to have the ability to take action against it.. He is not suggesting it has or will occur but why foreclose your opportunity to enforce if we believe that there is a serious problem, which he doesn't think many people will dispute. He stated that in reading the minutes and suggestions there was a proposal that had the first time offense, no action could be taken, and second time offense, minimal, third and fourth all within a floating 365 day period calendar, and is concerned about that; that you will see that the judge's schedule incorporates up to 2 years. He stated under current resources available to the police department, they don't have the ability on every calendar year to do more than 4 compliance checks, and if reach 4 in a year, that's good accomplishment on their part for their manpower, and that you're not going to be able to even reach the threshold under that proposal if you limit it to compliance checks, which raises one more point he wants them to be aware of - how can we learn of potential violations or how can we initiate enforcement of initial violations, and there are 4 ways that occurs: 10 called in complaint to police department, PSAP or prosecutor's office, city attorney's office; have had calls from licensed premise holders, and we encourage that; 2) call from employees that are concerned about it and have been told not to do anything but yet they unanimously will make a call; they have had parents knowing where their son or daughter has purchased alcohol and called in a complaint., get from school administrators, school teachers, from the general public and that is one category that he characterizes as complaints. You also have information obtained when officers make site visits (walking through a bar, asking for i.d.'s) and also prosecution occurs as result of investigations by the police department or public criminal offenses, that maybe a DUI or car accident, criminal investigation that leads them back to another violations; and last one is the sting operations or compliance checks where the police department or city attorney's office or city prosecutor's actually bring a youth forward trying to make purchases or access premises, generally they use 16 year olds and that can lead to enforcement. There are multiple ways that enforcements occur.

He stated another piece of information they should have is what happens if there is knowledge of a violation and potentially there are 4 responses: 1) officer discretion, the officer may or may not write that up, may give a verbal warning depending upon the circumstances, may confiscate the alcohol, and also prosecutorial discretion, the prosecutor's office will decide, does this warrant prosecution, maybe that your witness is not available or won't come forward and testify any further or your evidence is not available or maybe circumstances where they decide that the violation doesn't warrant prosecution; 3) opportunity to respond is through formal criminal charges, could be against the minor, the server, and in limited circumstance, the license holder; and 4) through administrative proceeding and that is focused on the license holder and that would break out into two categories: either local action or action through the State Attorney General's Office, the result of administrative proceeding for an alcohol violation is only three-fold - suspend the license, revoke a license or refuse to renew a license. Under our Code and under State Statutes except for administrative costs there is no monetary penalty for an administrative violation. Those are the types of processes that can be brought whether minor, adult, server or the licensed premise.

He stated that gives you information of background of what offenses are, what potential penalties are, what enforcement is and how the enforcement occurs and where it occurs. He stated that one of the suggestions was to prohibit the city prosecutor from forwarding any prosecution or potential administrative action to the A.G.'s Office, and he is recommending that they not accept that recommendation for several reasons: 1) that it doesn’t make any logic to him to foreclose an opportunity for enforcement; 2) the A.G. is enforcing State law, not local law; 3) the A.G. has demonstrated that there are procedurally correct, the follow the proper due process requirements and have it standardized, they do more than the local governments do and less opportunity for somebody to challenge the due process procedures; 4) eliminates the politics, eliminates each of you from getting called saying they didn't mean it, don't harm us and whatever the excuse might be, you are not put in the position to be lobbied; and 5) the cost of prosecution is not borne by the City, borne by the State, that includes the prosecutor, the hearing officer, the hearing itself and the issuance of orders and findings and conclusions. He stated he has given them the info from the A.G.'s Office to demonstrate that 1) that there hasn't been a focus or target in the city of Grand Forks, 2) to show you the consistent application of what the A.G. has done in liquor violations, and that they use the standardized approach unless there are circumstances that warrant greater response.

He stated as far as the server training ordinance, it was in March that they gave their first draft and are probably on a fourth or fifth iteration of that, and that ordinance has been revised and modified and tweaked, and the ordinance in its present draft is in a position that if you wish to adopt it, it is appropriate to adopt it, and doesn't think they have any further recommendations on changes from their side, and is truly a policy issue that they would like to proceed with.
He stated at one time they had drafted some proposed ordinance amendments at the request of the committee establishing min. mandatory penalties for offenses, and doesn't see that they have a problem with that right now (loud party) and will get you more data on that, and thinks it is appropriate that Municipal Court has the discretion to impose penalties. He stated during his tenure that the Municipal Court judges in Grand Forks and Fargo have generally been described as the convictive judges as opposed to some of the western municipal judges which more often have found reasons to dismiss cases, and nothing to be concerned about if have judge who takes things seriously, he will certainly dismiss cases or find acquittals when the evidence isn't there to warrant it but is very receptive when we can establish the case to finds them guilty and impose the fines.

Kristi Pettit, prosecutor, stated they have been doing numbers from loud parties, and have had a decrease in the numbers of loud party charges in 2006, there were 180 and had 240+ the year before, just guessing as doesn't have the numbers here - but a big decline from 2005 to 2006 when the ordinance changed, doesn't know if that is officer discretion not to cite or it did deter parties, but a decrease in numbers and the numbers show that they do not have a lot of second offenses, and is working as a deterrent, the judge does the 2 days in jail which does keep people from having other parties because they know he will revoke that and make them serve, and very few second offenses. On second offenses the judge does revoke the 2 days so they would end up serving those 2 days plus fines from $400 to $500 typically, and found one third offense in the data that she checked and went back 4 years and that he does increase the penalty. She stated what the judge is doing is a deterrent and most people come in and plead at their first appearance and take responsibility for their actions and sentenced, and usually when get defense attorney's involved that they end up having to deal with transfers to district court and more negotiations and plea agreements, etc. She stated that in trying to get numbers might be difficult because prior to this last year minor in consumption, minor on premises, false i.d. were all lumped under one ordinance number and pulling those up, hard to tell what offense was, and whether first, second offense. McNamara asked if she was confident that they have all the tools that they need to deal with this problem and wouldn't request any augmentation of that from us. Ms. Pettit stated she would not and thinks leaving it the way it is does give her the discretion to handle it as she sees fit, and based on the seriousness of the offense, based on criminal history and can take all those things into consideration, by having that max. of 30 days in jail and/or $1,000 fine gives her a lot more discretion to deal with it than if bound by minimum mandatories or if the court is bound by those min. mandatories and thinks the way it is now is the best tool she has to enforce violations.

Reichert, attorney, stated that the reason why defense attorneys remove things from Municipal Court to District Court, 99% is to get a jury trial or of having the option of having a jury trial because the deadline for them to do that is very short and it would foreclose their option of having a jury trial if leave it in Municipal Court and until there is a vast variation between District Court and Municipal Court in funds, they will continue to do that. What motivates people to go and hire an attorney and spend bunch of money is if have higher fines or higher penalties including min. mandatories. the majority of the cases are still resolved in Municipal Court at first appearance, when it gets more serious and they think they were treated unfairly by the police or whatever reason they will to a defense attorney. He stated as far as the minimum mandatories, when faced with a problem, the easy solution, it is in vogue to be tough on crime, and easy way to be tough on crime is to go out there and raise penalties. He asked the council not to take the easy way out, trust city prosecutor and city attorney, as they do a fantastic job and your city judge is fantastic, he thinks he is too harsh but committee may not. He stated he was in conjunction with the recommendation of the city attorney and the city prosecutor.

Tom Volk, Drug and Alcohol Prevention Coordinator, and also represents 32 coalitions in this region, 4 counties in the area, and are finding out that stats don't lie, that ND has a problem and need to address it. As for statement that everybody drinks alcohol and does those things, took offense to that, that he doesn't as he lost 3 family members to alcohol related crashes and doesn't do that. He stated he has a letter from Dr. Kevin Thompson, NDSU professor and is a department head with Criminal Justice and Political Science, stating that literature shows that the more minors have to pay for alcohol, the less likely they are to use, alcohol taxes and tobacco taxes work most to curb consumption among the population least able to afford these commodities, and that is proven in other stats that he has found. He stated that the higher taxes are more of a deterrent because young people can't afford to drink and his professional opinion is that this would apply to fines as well. He stated that in Fargo judges were very surprised when they raised the min. fines to $300, kids coming up with the money very quickly, and the judges then tacked on community service and has decreased Fargo's under age drinking; and he recommends that the council look at $500 fines and that would be raising the min. fine to about $500. He stated that higher taxes also works and not much data about the fines. He stated that the percentage of minors drinking alcohol and driving and riding with somebody who is drinking alcohol is increasing, through survey.

Kreun asked if the municipal judge can add community service without that being in an ordinance; Ms. Pettit stated he can. Mr. Swanson stated that has been in our Code for a number of years as an alternative. Bakken stated that minors under 18 is a parent issue, that it is actually their job and if it is going to be stopped, parenting has to come into play.

Gershman stated they had an event with the local retailers in the fall and the 65% program and showed nationally 65% of youth get their alcohol from family and friends and would purport that Grand Forks is even higher than that and that 7% nationally was the industry related and that we are working hard here and nationally to get that down, and when thinking about the issue, you are talking about 7% at maximum in our city that comes from the industry, and would suspect it would be less than that, but is a social issue and not just Grand Forks but a cultural issue in North Dakota, and try to get things at the state legislature which the alcohol industry tried to do last session and got their brains beat out. Mr. Volk stated he thinks this community could do something and send a message to those kids that we are not going to tolerate it any more. Gershman stated you can send all the messages to the kids but there is peer pressure and they know where and how to get it, money isn't going to stop them and taxation isn't going to do it; and what do you do to get to the parents - parents, family and friends is the issue and if don't address that, but just run around and chase the 2% and spend our time doing that, just nibble at the edges. Mr. Volk stated that the State of ND doesn't have any money for prevention efforts and he is running on a federal grant, Grand Forks doesn't even have any money for prevention and if talking about reaching the community that maybe the council should look at taking some of the fees that they are paying massive amounts of money for into a prevention program where they can hit the community with, and that he doesn't have the funds to do it and a lot of places are running into that problem as well. He stated prevention is getting out to the parents and talking with parents, doing parent resources, information to the parents and starting to change the community norms in this area. Kreun stated that The Answer is a good group (Mr. Volk is on the committee) and was discouraged because the school system didn't let them keep their office in the School District. Mr. Volk stated they lost that and the funding to keep them going because they don't have any State allocated monies. Gershman stated they are expected to address this problem that the State doesn't want to address ands evidently other organizations don't want to get involved, that he recused himself from a lot of this, but doesn't know what we can do other than to get the word out, its information and awareness. Kreun stated that the largest portion of the problem doesn't come from alcoholic beverage industry, and the only thing that we have to control is that the City has control of this portion of it and if we can start here without penalizing you too heavily and being a part of the solution rather than being a part of the problem and is what we are trying to accomplish; and he commends Mr. Volk for trying to work with the other parent groups but that is the hardest part to get at, and little disappointed with the situation because The Answer group has really worked hard and was making inroads and had very good connections and that a lot of that has stopped. Mr. Volk stated they have moved The Answer committed to United Way and they only have one person working on the program and are working under $8,000 for the entire program. Kreun stated perhaps we have to make a presentation to other interested groups, and maybe that is part of our responsibility as council members that this has been brought to us as a major concern of the community and have to go to The Answer and work with them and go to the people that they want to deal with, but right now what we are looking for, are we, as the council, have the right ordinances in place - right tools in place and are penalties right.

Bakken stated that perhaps they could have conversation with Judge Eslinger re. community service to see if it can be worked into his schedule and if survey correct and that is a deterrent and something he could look into.

McNamara stated in his time as a punishing person in the Marine Corps when court martial and punishment came to him, and dealt with the same age group, and the thing the Marines hated the most was having their weekends wasted, had certain restrictions given the charges they could levy and was the most powerful tool they had with young people which was to waste their time (find something constructive for them to do to develop themselves as young people on weekends and concur with Art,

Howard Swanson stated those conversations have occurred and are occurring but you need to understand when you impose orders of community service you also have to have the coordination with whatever entity is accepting the community service, because have to have supervision, aren't going to allow the 18-19 year old to have self fulfilled community service, need to coordinate it, need to have organizations, entities willing to accept community service and have to oversee it.
He stated it is easy to say force them to do community service, but will find when you combine municipal court and district court and the orders for community service, you have a larger number of people that are obligated to do community service than you may have community service projects willing to accept this.

Members of the Hospitality Industry gave their input - that their group got together and made recommendations - $2,000 min. fine and then find out that there are different categories of misdemeanors - that some of their recommendations have been discussed thoroughly and that they feel that a lot of their ideas wouldn't work - they have ideas and suggestions and Kreun stated that they have discussed them.

McNamara stated that one of the things they have asked us for is a tool to use against the criminal that comes into their establishment, and doesn't feel that we have given them anything - that we've said take a picture of them and if can put a picture of this person on t.v. and that they might be a minor and can't do that, and doesn't think that we have given them and they have bent over backwards to do server training, the compliance testing and thinks the Hospitality Industry is essentially becoming our partners and the ones that won't become partners with us, should pull their licenses down the road if we need to do that, but doesn't think that we have given them a tool and are able to focus this against the criminal which is the person that walks out that night
with a fake i.d. or with the intent to violate the law in this city - and that we need to do something to give them a tool that would be a deterrent - and at one time talked about taking a picture and put them on Channel 2, if know this person who attempted to buy liquor illegally - but doesn't think we have answered the question to do something for them because they are jumping through every hoop that we have given them, compliance , education, testing and doesn't seem like we are able to close the loop and get after the criminal.

Rep. of Hospitality Group stated that with all the meetings they have had, have yet to have a judge here or someone from the court system with data, have tried to get information and what about bringing the judges in here. Mr. Swanson stated he would not recommend that they ask the judges to appear - there are some ethical violations that come into play under the judicial rules of conduct as to what they can and cannot do. He stated he thinks it is inappropriate for a legislative body to ask the judiciary to come in and make a report on that. He stated they can provide info. through administration.

Kreun stated they have gone through this process and taking information from the Hosp. Group, our information and listened to many different aspects of it and it has come down to and doing probably about as much as the law allows us within reason, and if you raise the fines too high they find a way to circumvent - with going to District Court, and have we reached the balance of what we can do within reason so that everyone is somewhat satisfied.

Bakken asked what they can do to hold minor on premise - with fake i.d., - Mr. Swanson stated the licensed premise can hold a fake i.d. that they believe is fake or from compliance checks, we absolutely know that individuals going in without a fake i.d. are being served even after the i.d. is being looked at, either somebody doesn't have the math skills to check the date of birth or they are not looking at it other than glancing at it, but if get an i.d. whether it is fake or shows somebody under the age, hold it and turn it into the police - and if can perform a citizen's arrest, yes, but is not fail proof, retail stores take it upon themselves to police, hold, call and follow through with the prosecution, have had instances where we attempted to prosecute and not had the cooperation of the bartender, server or bouncer in appearing to testify and that case is dismissed. He stated they can take photographs, hold them for the police department and next response will hear is that the police department won't respond, they will respond but it will be in a priority order and doesn't think that this committee is suggesting to change that priority but without State legislation there is a potential for civil liability for a bar attempting to hold somebody, just as there is for a retail store attempting to hold somebody until the police arrive.

Rep. of Hospitality Industry commented towards compliance check - they feel it is a sting operation, entrapment and very harsh. Mr. Swanson asked what is the difference if the City is enforcing it or the Attorney General enforces it. Rep. stated shutting a business down for a day or 3 days is difficult; and wanted to come up with something and made recommendations and proposals. Mr. Swanson stated that they feel the A.G.'s Office is more harsh because they will suspend a license for a day or up to 3 days, this body got the full report from the A.G.'s Office on how often that occurs, and when it has occurred in his opinion is - and to suggest that they are going back 10 to 15 years of being up old violations is not accurate. Rep stated that City's compliance checks and if someone has a fail in 2000 --- Mr. Swanson stated he didn't think they could identify one establishment that has had an increased sentence or punishment in recent years because of something that occurred more than 5 years earlier; and that they have the full report back to the year 2000 from A.G.'s Office and that there is a period of time that the A.G.'s Office includes in their orders that will incorporate prior violations and it isn't 5 years. Rep. asked if it ever comes off your record - Mr. Swanson stated a criminal violation is always on your record; Kreun stated that is going to happen whether we enforce it or whether the AG's Office enforces it, will continue to happen. It was noted that the A.G. is not using previous violations or warnings as criteria to up the penalty. Information from the A.G.'s Office would be provided to the Hospitality Industry re. violations.

Mr. Swanson stated that the ability to sell liquor is one of the highest regulated and policed industries in the nation, there is history for it and reasons for it, and being in that industry you have to accept that, government has a role in enforcing compliance with that activity, and not suggesting there shouldn't be communication, not suggesting there shouldn't be partnerships but there are consequences for illegal activity and that he doesn't think that 1) the law will not support you in suggesting a compliance checks are entrapment, there is not a jurisdiction in the U.S. that has ruled that; Rep stated that is how they feel; but law doesn't back them up; compliance checks have demonstrated to you over the years in reduction in those apparent violations, it may be coincidence but one conclusion is that compliance checks have been deterrent, and for them to go out and say that they are going to eliminate compliance checks or to say there are no consequences of compliance checks or that they are going to be pre-scheduled compliance checks doesn't seem to him to be appropriate either. If our goal is to reduce alcohol presence in minor, why would they want to tie the hands of law enforcement. Mr. Swanson stated that he sent out e-mail and pointed out that the vast majority of the license holders in GF perform exceptionally well.

Mr. Swanson stated to call the police, give as much information as can, physical info. - that they are willing to prosecute, but without call from industry, the police department won't know about it, and can't prosecute when they can't prove it. Kreun stated that no matter what penalty they put in place, if industry doesn't report it and if can't prove it, it is worthless and have to get to the point where we can arrest them and prosecutors prove with information given.

Reps also asked if the judge couldn't attend meeting to let them know what he is doing. Ms. Pettit stated they could sit in at court to find out that information.

McNamara asked Mr. Swanson if there is a way if a photo was taken, could that be run on Channel 2, stating that think this person is between the ages of 18 and 21, and could that be run to find out who that person is, and to contact the GF Police Department, and if had some kind of program like that wouldn't have to see too many photos on t.v. before you would see a lot of that activity diminish. Mr. Swanson stated he would research liability on that, will do legal research to determine what role you can or can't do in posting a photograph in investigation.

Mr. Swanson stated one of the concerns he had in reading about some of these meetings in the media was the perception that was being presented that the minors were not being prosecuted, and that perception was front and center in these meetings and even today hearing that, he stated he believes the message they need to hear as a committee and a council is the message that is coming from the city prosecutor's office and city attorney's office and that they are in fact prosecuting minors and there is significant risk for minors being convicted. You heard the plea from University students for loud party ordinance that the conviction of a loud party ordinance affected their ability to get a pilot's license, into med school, into graduate school or employment, and will tell you that convictions that are alcohol related have even greater implications to those minors than a loud party violation does, and that is something that the public may not appreciate and needs to understand that 1) there will be prosecutions and 2) sanctions are severe; and with the help of the industry could even increase that number of prosecutions.

Chief Packett reported that the police department would concur with the comments from the city attorney and the city prosecutor, it reinforced what they have been discussing at the committee level for about a year, that a lot of things are working, the police department has shown that good outreach and are working with the Hospitality Industry, have gone from a 75% failure rate to approx. 25-26% and working to get that even lower, that the data that the city attorney presented from the A.G.'s Office shows that there is due diligence at the State level, that if have 70 some licensed premises in the community and only averaging 5 or 6 business a year, 4 on the low side and 12 on the high side, over a 6 year period and that shows that a very small percentage of the businesses are being referred and suffering some penalty, that they could work harder on the perception with the industry as far as fairness, and that they are pleased that the system is working well, their outreach is working well, the courts are doing what they should be doing and the data shows that the folks that are doing these crimes and coming to the attention of government are being prosecuted and there are appropriate penalties being leveled.

2. Roadway construction overview for 2007.