Committee Minutes

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

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Service/Safety Standby Committee met in Room A101 in City Hall on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. Present at roll call were Council Members Kreun, chair; Bakken, McNamara. Others present were Chief Packett, John Warcup, John Schmisek, Pete Haga and members of the Liquor Dealers Assn.

1. Loud party ordinance.
It was noted that students and representatives not back and to hold this item; and will receive report from Chief Packett re. towing companies.

2. Server training ordinance.
Recommendations were submitted after Mr. Haga working with the police department, Hospitality Industry and members of the Alcohol and other Drugs Task Force) met, and that items in the recommendation had been discussed by them, and Chairman Kreun stated that they would not review item by item but only those where there were concerns or changes, and should have roster updated quarterly rather than annually. He stated he understood that Bill Vasicek's group would put together a data base or work with police department on a data base and would be brought to them and they would maintain that data base with the police department; information would be available to the Hospitality Industry.

Bakken noted item of concern was the accessibility of alcohol to minors schedule of penalties, second offense, and is proposing to change that to $750 rather than $500, $750 and 40 hours community service on the second and subsequent offenses and this would put everybody on the same playing field. Tony Kvasager, rep. of the Industry, stated that server fails on second compliance check would be $750 and 40 hours of community service, and those figure did not come from the Industry reps and that they had proposed a $200 fine for the server if they failed a compliance check whether first, second or third time. Mr. Haga stated you can't change the minor violation without changing others because same type of offenses. Mr. Kvasager stated they felt that was excessive for the server; however, Bakken stated it needs to be excessive if want it to stop. Kreun stated it puts the responsibility on them, huge responsibility, and if don't follow up with responsibility, there is penalty. Mr. Kvasager stated that they have a labor shortage and that this could make it worse for them.

It was noted that Mr. Vasicek e-mailed them relative to accessibility to minors under appeals and stated it has been recommended that the appeals would be heard by the liquor license screening body composed of the finance director, fire chief and public health director, with final appeal to city council. Chief Packett stated that would be consistent with the other decision making body and wouldn't have anybody on the enforcement side, but police department as a resource where asking investigators to come in and give testimony on their report.

McNamara asked where schedule of penalties came from, where schedule of penalties would be set up according to a 365-day time period with recommended policy as follows: first offense, warning to the business; second offense, $500 fine to the business; third offense: one-day suspension of the business' liquor license as provided for in City Code 21-0233. Subsequent violations: a graduated scale of days of suspension to the business, there would not be a scheduled fine for the employee because the current method of prosecution is suitable. It was noted that this is where they changed to $750 rather than the $500; and also noted that for a rolling 365-day period; and that one year after your first offense that offense is off. Mr. Kvasager stated under the special compliance checks, but lumping in a mandatory walk-through program and the mandatory occasional drop-by program in which case they will check tables and if find a minor that will also count as a violation against the schedule of offenses; and maybe check special compliance checks 3 or 4 times a year but there will also be 3 or 4 mandated walk-throughs which would allow up to 7 occasions where they may fail against this schedule of offenses. It was also noted that in the special compliance checks they will be checked randomly however, if someone should fail, they will be checked automatically again in the next round. McNamara asked Chief Packet if they will be able to execute this, and Chief Packett stated they would.

Bakken stated that they went from $500 to $750 on the second offense, and that under the new system, that the possibility of having more than 2 is greater now and enforcement after the server training is going to be increased also. McNamara stated that he wanted to know that the whole thing was wired together and the frequency is going to be there to support the penalties, doing to make sure we get ourselves and solid business owners in this community on the same side, that not afraid to pull licenses of people that don't play by the rules and that doing enough compliance checks.

There was some discussion relative to businesses being checked randomly, repeat offenders, and if checked more because of a previous violation that would be clear to a business but if randomly selected and get checked 3 or 4 times in a given year, what is test there, how selected. Mr. Vasicek stated that currently in Fargo they do a random selection by computer and talked to the person in charge and they would come and review that programming - would be selected randomly by computer. Mr. Kvasager stated that after several of their quarterly meetings if have someone comes and says he has been checked 3 times in the last tests and passed everyone, thought that this was supposed to be random, and would hope that they would do something to change their system or make more random or move out of the computer or scratch them off the list. Bakken stated that is not possible, and what happens if business knows he had been deleted. Kreun suggested that they continue with this to see if program works.

There was discussion relating to detaining individuals (minors), that businesses detain shoplifters, that they notify police department and hold shoplifters and make sure they are charged; and that they want to target is the underage person and thinks we have provisions here to do that, and questions was asked as to their rights as business owners. Chief Packett stated server training program could teach them their rights under the Century Code on a shoplifter vs. the rights to detain on an i.d. alcohol question. Mr. Warcup stated in most cases would still be classified as a misdemeanor and only looking at the liability issue against the employee and establishment if try to get away from you and that is biggest concern. Chief Packett stated that "become a good witness" - follow them to the car, get license number and description. There was some discussion by industry owners that they do not want their employees following individuals outside. It was also noted that if have photograph and identify person and identify the interior of an alcohol establishment should be able to prosecute that. McNamara stated they know what they legally can do and legally cannot do, and that information will get around at university and high schools; and is big part of this that sending a message to young people in the community that they are going to be detained and arrested. It was noted that this will not stop it and what doing is not putting fear in the kids; however, it stated that second offense may when having to do 40 hours of community service. Kreun also stated that the expanded training talks about these issues without creating a situation where you get sued and if get away, did the best you could, won't catch every single one. It was also noted that if have i.d. and license plate and come to that individual's house and that is where the big dent is going to be made.
Kvasager asked if individual comes in, and is asked for his i.d. and he says he forgot it and walks out, what should they do. Chief Packett stated that the business should call the police department, and police will come out and work with them and make that decision. Mr. Vasicek stated that these are things they can discuss in server training. so all servers are trained the same way and discuss in the quarterly meetings. McNamara stated they should be vigorous in chasing those kids down, and asked Mr. Warcup to check to see if have pictures on t.v. Mr. Haga stated they are going to go in and address things re. city ordinances and policies and Hospitality Industry working with all of them to get this problem solved, know that it is only a small part of the problem but if move forward with this and address what we can do that allows us to go into the community and to address the major problem. Kreun noted that perhaps they should invite The Answer to some of those quarterly meetings, as they are the ones trying to address it with the school groups so they know what is being done and some coordination between other groups. There was also some discussion about meth. however it was noted that meth is used by only 4% of Grand Forks population and alcohol is over 50% of students and alcohol is the major problem. (5th through 12th grades --- 18 to 20 on another survey and data resource). It was noted that 65% of problem is friends, relatives buying booze. The major problem is not the bar owners but one of the things to work with as governmental agency and police force is with the Hospitality Industry to combat the 6, 7 and 8%, and next step is once we get this under control and have police and Hosp. Industry working and take Tom and Bill's group and hopefully have a comprehensive plan that will change the attitude.

Bakken stated they were talking about city council discussion following numbers of license renewal fees and financing initial application fees, that now going to recommend that the City no longer finance the initial fees, will have a committee of the whole discussion at a future date after get more information on it. Mr. Schmisek stated that part of the history on liquor establishments when switched was that only ones who could get license were larger corporations from out of state compared to a local business owner. Kreun stated that can be eliminated as that was transitional and those applying have to put it in their business model and borrow the money from the bank rather than us.

Mr. Kvasager asked under local prosecution if everything is going to stay local as far a special compliance checks; that the last sentence says that the A.G.'s office would continue to prosecute according to State Law at any time they determine appropriate. The committee stated they cannot lock them out of it, they can step in. Kvasager stated that in talking with the A.G.'s office they said that they only way they would get involved is if they were notified of a failure of a compliance check, and this leaves the door open for City to notify them. Mr. Haga stated that anytime the A.G.'s office determines it appropriate. Mr. Kvasager stated that they wanted to make sure that failure of special compliance checks are kept locally and shouldn't be included there. Kreun stated that was a courtesy for everybody to know that we do not have the last word if the A.G. decides to step in.

Mr. Vasicek stated it was his understanding that any violations after 3 license could be pulled, and who would be keeping track of the violations. It was noted that police department as these are only liquor violations.

It was noted that whenever this goes into effect, that previous 365 days is what they talked about, and only those with violation within the last 365 days and starts to roll from that period of time. There was some opposition by the Hospitality Industry as they thought it should start with a clean slate on February 1 or when the ordinance goes into effect. .

Kreun stated that they have had first reading on this ordinance. It was moved by Bakken and seconded by McNamara to implement with minor changes, and change in the finance area, however, that this recommendation go to the next committee of the whole meeting before being brought to the council for second reading on the ordinance. Motion carried.

Mr. Warcup had several questions re. ordinance, server training ordinance, and ordinance with penalties (Section 9-0503). It was noted that Mr. Warcup would review those ordinances.

It was noted that the committee set January 17 as next committee meeting with the loud noise ordinance being placed on that agenda

3. Report re. towing companies.
Chief Packett reported as of December 22, they had received 180 phone calls/inquiries and concerns about the towing, and these people have met with the city prosecutor's office and city atto4ney's office to discuss the matter and that they were looking at a smaller number than the 180 for possible criminal prosecution. It was noted that out of the 180 phone calls and complaints they are going to prosecute 3 or 4, and will be on-going for some time; and also noted that they could also bring suit into civil court. It was noted that they have 3 or 4 signed affidavits against towing companies.

McNamara stated that under City Code the property owner has to contact the police department notifying them that a car is being removed from a private lot, and if that process is being adhered to. Police Dept. stated that the tow truck company is supposed to contact them that they have removed a vehicle; on some of these the property owner calls the tow truck company and some have agreement with tow truck company. McNamara stated every vehicle that gets towed, the property owner has to authorize that, and read from the City Code the section relating to that effect. He stated that if they follow the law in Grand Forks, where they take that vehicle storage area has to be open 24 hours a day, and when these vehicles go to the East Side, they are not open 24 hours per day, they are only open between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and if outside those hours, he nails you for $60, and wanted to have discussion today and would like to see us look into requiring a license to tow in the city and if the police department gets complaints and if pull your license you do not do business in the city of Grand Forks. He stated UND students and AFB people are victims of this. He stated he want to provide a remedy to the citizens and incumbent upon us to do something reasonable that if have this problem in the future can tell that person that they are not going to be in that business, and that is what he would like the committee to look at.

Mr. Warcup stated that bringing action against towing companies in small claims court or district court beyond municipal court; that recovering fees is not something that municipal court could do, but to recover fees would be through small claims court. Chief Packett stated that Kristi Pettit sat down with our staff and reviewed complaints; and still options to prosecute others if all the elements of the ordinance are not met; and if they find out that there's 40 more to where it wasn't the owner that called, there can be prosecution on those as well; that we are not talking the initial 4 that meet the initial threshold.

Chair Kreun stated under the ordinance that we have now your interpretation is that the owner has to call the police department, and if the owner called. Mr. Warcup stated they have the limits as to the towing charges, and if overcharge, could prosecute that. Kreun also asked if calls are verified as to who is calling, and it was noted that PSAP keeps the log and should start asking questions of who is calling, etc. and recording them. Bakken asked that they look at this and bring back to committee of the whole. Kreun asked how can we enforce what we have right now and then take a look at it because we are looking at parking downtown with Urban Development, that this may be a part of that study that we have to look at but in the meantime if we can follow the ordinance that we have and curb it to that extent. It was noted that Urban Development is concerned with a more residential construction downtown, and some parking lots would be resident at night and how make those work and have a number of issues that have to be looked at, and his concern is the amount of money involved and the only way this gets enforced is if a citizen files a complaint. He asked if they could inform those people to ask those questions, whether owner or manager.

The committee asked that they review how this is implemented by PSAP and next time we meet on the 17th of January, could review it again. Kreun stated it is up to the citizens to some degree to formalize it and make the complaints. Bakken also noted that a lot of these people park where they are not supposed to park. The committee asked that they place this on the agenda on January 17 along with the noise ordinance and invite Mr. Morken, and to Urban Development if that is the next step.

Chief Packett stated that the City has an agreement with a towing company, Interstate Towing.

Adjourn

It was moved by Bakken and McNamara to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk