Committee Minutes

Service/Safety Standby Committee
Thursday, September 28, 2006 - - 7:00 p.m.

Chair Kreun called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. in Room A101, City Hall.

Present at roll call were: Kreun, Bakken, McNamara. Absent: Gershman.

Kreun announced that item 3. Outdoor Solid Fuel Boiler has been pulled from tonight’s meeting, as information is still being compiled and that it will come to a future meeting.

1. Bar Server Training.

Kreun stated everyone had received e-mail of recommendations from hospitality group and existing ordinance and start by reviewing the existing ordinance and discussing any proposed changes.

Kreun stated that the first requested change was in section 1.a.ii. and that would be to change time to get certified after date of hire from 45 to 60 days. No objections were expressed to this change.

The group discussed that there was also a request to allow for a program whereby an individual at an establishment could be trained and then they could train the new employees at their establishment. Sgt. Schroeder, GF Police Department, stated that Ralph Engelstad currently has an in-house training program using a TIPS certified trainer. Tony Kvasager, Big Daddy’s, stated that the Police Department training is not as advanced as TIPS and all the hospitality group is looking for is to receive a CD-rom of the training done by the police department that they could then use to train their own employees. Schroeder responded that the Police Department would not have a problem with that if could arrive at a way to validate that the training was completed. Kreun suggested that perhaps the business could do the training with the use of the materials from the Police Department and then have the server go to the Police Department for the test and then would get the certificate to take back to the business after they pass. Tom Wolf, Safe Communities, stated that the last time they checked on getting some type of program on CD and copied the cost was high and question whether everyone wants to pay that. Harry Bushaw, Bun Lounge, stated that if someone could video tape the training, he would be willing to get copies of the training made that could be given to each establishment and could do for a reasonable price.

John Warcup, Asst. City Attorney, stated that he would not see a problem, but that the ordinance would require that a certified trainer that was approved by the Police Department must conduct the server training at each establishment.

The group discussed that there would need to be a way to verify that the training was being conducted and was consistent and complete. Kreun suggested that perhaps the owner or one of his key managers should be the one certified to train and then with the Police Department continuing the test administration would have a check. Wolf inquired how the establishments would handle the fake id portion and whether each would be provided with a set to use and then also who would monitor whether employees are all completing the training within the required time. The group discussed that the businesses could maintain a file that would contain the date of hire and completion of training date for each employee and could add the certification date to that as well.

Eliot Glassheim, City Council Member, commented that he feels it may be better to continue just having one central training program that all employees go to and then keep it more consistent and also puts all weight for the training away from the business owner and on the Police Department. Kvasager responded that by doing in-house they can actually spend more time than just the two hours that the Police Department have, but still contend that any type of training will not assure an owner that their employee will not make a mistake and serve a minor. Kreun stated that there is also a problem in that many of these servers are part-time employees and sometimes hard to get a large number together at the same time, whereas if each business did in-house could sit down with one or two at a time and go through the program. Bushaw inquired whether the fake id portion of the training could be retained with the Police Department and they could go through that and show the current samples to the servers just prior to them taking their exam. Schroeder responded that the fake id portion of the training is actually a minimal part and more emphasis is put on due diligence and training the server to make a good faith effort to read the id. He stated that most of the time when someone is sited for serving minor, due to failure to ask for id, failure to properly read the valid id, or failure to confirm that the person presenting the id is actually the person on the id.

Kreun requested that Haga work with the Police Department on making a video of their training presentation.

McNamara commented that he had received an e-mail expressing concern that the Police Department training program would not be able to meet the need once the training is mandatory for all and inquired what plans would be. Bill Vasicek, Safe Communities, responded that currently it is just voluntary training and so low participation and that’s why only running a couple of sessions, but with mandatory could step up the number of sessions offered and timing of them. McNamara responded that if could get the train the trainer program going that could help with class availability problems as well.

Bushaw commented that the intent of this is to decrease availability of alcohol to minors, but this is one of the smallest sources for the minors, as most get it from parents fridge, older kids, etc. and would like to see what other steps are being taken to address those more prevalent areas. Kreun responded that the committee that has been meeting is aware of this and that they are working on some other programs that can address those concerns and will be seeing more coming forward as their work continues. He continued that knowing these concerns makes it very frustrating that the School District removed the office for The Answer from the school building and that group was working with youth to address some of those concerns. Bakken commented that once we get this in place will have addressed one source and then can look at other ordinances that will address bootlegging, etc.

The next section of the ordinance deals with the term of the certificate and the group agreed that a three year term is appropriate and should be renewable. The group discussed how to word the section and the correct date to include so that those that have just completed the course recently will not have to retake it until closer to a three year time frame. Consensus was to let Warcup work out the wording. Warcup clarified that the group does not want to include any training prior to 2003 as valid training. Consensus was that was correct, as there are no records for those who may have been trained prior to 2003.

In the section of the ordinance dealing with what to include in the curriculum, Schroeder inquired whether #7 DUI laws could be stricken, as it is there understanding that the training is meant to focus on point of entry, minor, power hour, and overserving and that is a lot of information to include in the training and does not seem that DUI may fit with the emphasis we are working toward. The group discussed that they would like to see more than the current 15 minutes that is devoted to id recognition and perhaps at least 30 minutes, as that is where mistakes are often made by servers and that feeling is that it is very hard to spot the signs of intoxication and that comes more in on the job training. The Police officers present both commented that want to keep the training on information that the employee most needs to know and that time for the course could be increased, but still a lot of information to absorb and more that you include the harder it is to fit it all in. Kreun suggested that as a part of creating the video of the training, perhaps the hospitality industry representatives could work with the police department and decide how to address this in the training.

McNamara inquired as to the intent of the course. Vasicek stated that it would be to keep underage out of the establishments, to lessen overserving, and to let the employee know what their responsibilities are, dram shop laws. He continued that there has been talk about the id information, and that is something that is changing, as new id’s are becoming extremely difficult to alter and that should lessen the fake id problem, allowing for more time to be spent on correct reading of an id. Wolf concurred and stated that presenting the DUI laws seems to fit in with the third objective of responsibility and potential liability to the business as a result of the alcohol that is served. McNamara concurred that the overserving also seems to fit with the DUI laws. Christensen commented that most people know that with the reduced limit of .08 it only takes a couple of drinks for most to be over the limit and maybe something that could be kept out of or to a minimum in the training.

McNamara suggested perhaps listing the focus of the training and then letting the actual curriculum be flexible, as long as it meets the focus listed. The group discussed how difficult it can be for servers and in the area of DUI and overserving, are they responsible to serve customers different if they are not driving, but maybe on a bus or limo, and can make it very problematic for business, and shouldn’t some of that be left to personal responsibility of the patron. Kreun stated that the intent is not to set serving limits, but rather to make the servers aware of signs that to watch for as they provide service and suggested that perhaps could keep working on that section of the ordinance and then bring it back to the committee with 3-4 bullets that list the focus of the training.

The group discussed that there will be a certificate provided to the server that successfully completes training and that will be given to the business to retain in their files, as well as perhaps a card that the server could keep so that if they change employment some way to show they are certified. They also discussed that both the businesses and the police department will maintain a file as to who has completed the training.

The next section of the ordinance deals with penalties for not completing the mandatory training. No changes were discussed, other than that there will be a grace period once the ordinance is passed to allow time for all current servers to complete their training before the penalty phase kicks in.

Kreun stated that besides reviewing and discussing proposed changes to the existing ordinance that the hospitality group had also requested some changes in other ordinances related to alcohol violations by minors and that those would now be discussed.

Kreun continued that the first request was that the server training ordinance would be enacted simultaneously with any changes in the other ordinances to be discussed next.

Kreun stated that the recommendation would be regarding compliance checks and that a schedule should be used, that the disciplinary action should stay within the discretion of the City and not be forwarded to the State for action, and that a proposed penalty schedule was included.

Kvasager stated that in regards to a schedule for the training, the group is not looking for dates, times, or any specific information, but more of a knowledge that, for instance, there will be x number of checks randomly selected done each week or month or quarter, with the intent being that there is some consistency to how often and system to how they are done. Schroeder stated that there is a goal that as funding is available they would like to check each establishment quarterly, and should not check anyone more often than that unless they fail their quarterly check and then could be subject to recheck that quarter. McNamara asked that there be clarification given for the group as to what constitutes a failure. Schroeder responded that would be when the minor, using his own valid id, enters an establishment and is served.

The group discussed that all owners want to prevent the serving of minors, but that part of the problem is that they are unable to detain a minor when they are caught on the premises so that they can be prosecuted. Several bar owners shared experiences and confusion that they have experienced in situations where they have detected a minor, both with fake id or attempting to gain entry with id that is clearly not them, and shared their frustration with response from police department and different information that has been given out as to their options. The consensus was that if could arrive at a way to get more enforcement on the offenders then would lessen the problem. Schroeder commented that a business can hold the minor, but if any injury occurs, the business is liable. Christensen stated that the goal would be to see if there was a way to write it so that if the minor is caught by serving staff then have a way to force them to stay until police can come and deal with the situation. McNamara asked is could look to the shoplifting rules and citizen arrest to help. Wolf commented that if the City includes this in ordinance may lead to some legal liability for the City.

Schroeder commented that the police department does try to assist with minors as they can, and if they have done a person to person check in an establishment and found a minor, usually have not charged the business in that case, even though they could, but have then only charged the minor. Schroeder commented that if the business does detain someone the police department will respond and arrest them.

Dave Frisch, member of the task force, commented that they view this ordinance as the start of an education process which will continue with other training by The Answer and other educational opportunities and wants all to be aware that they are not a temperance group, just want to see responsible behavior with alcohol for those of age and reduce the availability to minors.

Kreun stated that it appears that there is a consensus on the existing ordinance and changes and next is to discuss the offenders. He continued that there has been a concern expressed that when cases are moved to District Court that the penalties are then smaller than what we would usually impose. Warcup responded that if we have in our City Ordinances a fine and penalty for an offense that District Court is bound by that, it is only when we do not list it then it reverts to the State listed. He continued that there is a restriction on what we can impose at the municipal level and can’t go above $1,000 fine and 30 days in jail. Kreun suggested that perhaps Warcup could meet with representatives of the Task Force and the Hospitality Group and come up with what seem to be agreeable fines that are within our limits and then bring that back to committee for discussion.

Chris Rood, the Answer and task force member, commented that once we have fines set and start imposing them it won’t take long for kids to get the message and they will start changing their behavior.

The group moved on to the next recommendation, that any disciplinary action for violators be retained at the City level instead of being forward to the AG for state action. The group discussed that currently the City has the ability to take action, but they usually do not, they forward to the state to take action against the licensee and that in Fargo there was an agreement made with the state, part of which was a strict defined penalty schedule, and the State now allows all violations to be handled at the local level and they concur with the penalty and do not assess any additional. Warcup commented that we can talk with the State, but we have no jurisdiction to prevent them from taking additional action should they choose to. The group requested that we talk with the state to see if an agreement similar to Fargo’s could be arrived at. The group discussed that the proposed penalties from the Hospitality Group are tough and address both a penalty for the establishment and the server. The Hospitality Group expressed concern that there also needs to be tougher penalties for the violators, which is one of the next recommendations from the group.

Kreun suggested that for both penalty areas, for business/server and for minor, should have reps from look at it with the attorney and bring back a researched proposal to this committee. McNamara stated that he can see the frustration of the business and the server and that to some extent some of them are victims of the minor trying to offend and need to look at making first toughest penalty to the offender and then to the business and server. He continued that there should also be stepped up penalties for those that are repeat offenders, both in the area of minors and businesses serving to minors and those repeat offenders need to be treated differently. He added that the video or still camera idea discussed earlier seems pursuable as should also pursue the detainment of the offenders and comments from the audience about that it doesn’t take much to get the enforcement message out are correct. Bakken stated that he agrees and that it is unfortunate that attorneys today have helped further the idea in society that there is not the same level of personal responsibility that there used to be and supports trying to get the punishment on the offender.

Kreun requested that Haga work with the groups to schedule a meeting to work on the ordinance and make sure to include the City Attorney’s office in the meeting so that legal guidance can be given as to how to best write the ordinance.

2. Noise Ordinance Revisited.

Kreun commented that this discussion relates to the revised noise ordinance that was passed following lengthy discussion over the last year and that a request was made to revisit the ordinance and that Mr. Dick Olson, attorney, is present today for the discussion. Olson stated that he is a practicing attorney, former prosecutor, and instructor at UND, and has had opportunity to represent individuals and rental owners in regards to this ordinance and that when changes were made, now offenders that are convicted have a permanent criminal record on their first offense and not like other minor crimes where can have it removed from their record if have no further offenses for a year. He continued that in the current age where almost every job requires a background check this one mistake can ruin someone’s life and career and does not seem fair and would request that as most offenders are students that are here to learn that they be given a chance to learn from their mistakes and have record cleared for first offense. He continued that there is also concern over the way the ordinance is written and that it is very vague and just says “loud” and allows too much discretion to the responding officer and would like to see some levels put in there to define loud so that can’t be so subjective. He added that he had addressed these concerns in a September 22 letter to Howard Swanson, City Attorney, and requested that an ordinance change to allow for deferred imposition of sentence be made and could even support increase of the fine and potentially dropping down to an infraction level so that then could not be able to appeal out of Municipal Court and that would also make it so that the offense would not create a criminal record. He continued that it would be better to have the case remain in Municipal Court, as when it is removed to District Court then automatically adds $224 administrative costs. Olson shared some cases of previous clients with the group to give them a better understanding of some circumstances that he is dealing with.

The group discussed that the ordinance was changed due to a problem with loud parties and needed to have something in place so that the police could respond and disburse the party if needed and that since the enactment of the ordinance have not been a drastic increase in the number of calls or arrests, but that the neighborhoods are quieter and not level of complaints about violations that there used to be. Olson responded that he has no problem with the ordinance, other than requesting that the mandatory minimum be changed or that the wording be changed so that the first offense is an infraction and not criminal, even if that means that the mandatory minimum is raised to the highest allowed limit. Mike Rocks-McQueen, Student Senator, stated that even is go back to deferred imposition of sentence, it will still be one the offenders record for the year after the infraction and do want to keep people accountable for their actions. He continued to give some examples of cases that he had received calls on and that based on those, that students feel that they are being singled out and that reason that they come here is to go to college and get a better career and that can be impossible for a person that gets a record. Rocks-McQueen continued that the students also feel that the ordinance is too vague and would like to see specific measurable limits written into the ordinance so that they would know when they are in violation, as some of the cases that have been brought to him show that it is now being interpreted the same by all of the responding officers and that some are even looking for ways to find infractions after they have been to a house once. Kreun responded that in reviewing the information from the police department the number of calls to the UND area are proportionate to the number of calls in the rest of the City and have not heard a similar concern expressed from any other area. Rocks-McQueen stated that only 35% of students live on campus and most that are older move off and only looking at statistics by area is not conclusive enough because some of the calls from other areas may also involve students and would be nice to see statistics by age as well as location. He added that students feel the existing penalties are too harsh on a first time offender and would like to see something like first offense is warning, then be harsh for second time with higher fine, but maybe deferred and then third even higher fine and also that a noise meter or some similar measure be used to determine the violation.

Kreun responded that this has all been discussed at length prior to the passage of the ordinance and only one group is complaining and no complaints on the ordinance from any other citizen groups and no complaints from the neighborhoods since this ordinance is put in place. McNamara commented that perhaps things have improved because this ordinance has teeth in it and as long as we are consistent in enforcement like we are for other offenses then doesn’t see a reason to change just for one group, but if can show some inconsistency in enforcement then maybe need to look at it, but just because it’s new rule that people don’t like is not a reason to change. Duquette commented that his office has not heard any complaints on the ordinance and is not hearing that this is an enforcement issue, but rather that the offense is now a criminal offense. Christensen stated that could discuss bringing first offense down to infraction and then have harsh second offense penalty and asked what effect that would have on situation. Warcup stated that for infraction the maximum is $500 fine and if left the second offense as criminal that could have up to a $1,000 fine under state law. Duquette commented that the police department is busy and have no desire to be a party patrol and that he is also hearing that the Grand Forks Police may not be the issue, but the UND Police are and we have no control over their officers and the judgment that they use.

Olson added that the other issue is the vagueness of the ordinance. Duquette stated that professionally it is better for a citizen to be able to let the police officer use judgment in responding to the situation than having set meter reading which could lead to more citations being written where now only warnings are being given.

Olson responded that then perhaps the answer is to let the offenders have one chance to learn their lesson without impacting their future by automatically creating a criminal record for anyone that makes a mistake. He continued that this can be very problematic, especially in the case of a foreign student or a student that later wants to travel or work abroad, who could be prohibited with even one offense on their record. He added that he has no sympathy for second or subsequent offenders, as they have had their chance to learn and chose not to and has no problem with that being a mandatory, just feels that it is unfair for the first time offender. Kreun stated that he has heard from many who have the opposite opinion and feel that should know the law and if they break it then pay the penalty and not hearing any complaints from others on the ordinance.
Haylee Cripe, Student Affairs Officer, stated that she has heard from many students about the ordinance, not only the criminal offense section, but also the fact that it was changed to be 24 hours a day ordinance, mainly because of Springfest and now many students are feeling directed totally against them. She continued that there are also many concerned that almost any job that you apply for requires a background check and that one offense could affect their whole career.

Lt. Sieber, GF Police Department, stated that there is another concern to consider as well, and that is that there are other offenses that have the same penalty and if this one group can come forward and request change we may be opening the door to other groups coming in and asking for the same in regard to those other crimes. He continued that the other issue that the police department has is if the offense is decriminalized it curbs the ability of the police to do their job, as they can not obtain a search warrant to enforce an infraction.

Olson responded that if took away the mandatory, likely would get deferred sentence with steep fine, and then could dismiss after one year and remove from record, but if there is a second offense in that year, then would have to pay the fine and serve the time. He stated that this would be similar to minor in consumption, shoplifting, or disorderly conduct.

Bakken commented that he hears that the GF Police are using appropriate discretion in enforcement and the statistics back that up in that there were over 200 calls, but only 40+ citations and that warnings are not even included in those statistics.

Christensen commented that he would have no problem with making a change to the ordinance for the first offense, and that part of passing ordinances is that they sometimes have an unintended consequence, but is not sure about revisiting the hours for enforcement. McNamara stated that the statistics show that the change in hours of enforcement are immaterial. He asked that Warcup review with the group some samples of the offenses that would be criminal on first offense versus samples of those that would be removable on first offense. Warcup stated that some that would be criminal on first offense would be driving under suspension, DUI, and no liability insurance versus minor in consumption, minor on premises, shoplifting, or disorderly conduct which would all allow for a deferred sentence and for the offense to be wiped from the record after one year. McNamara stated that seems that by nature the loud party would maybe fit more with the second group than the first.

Olson stated that he has no problem with an increase in the fine, only concern is the criminalization. Schroeder restated that if the offense is decriminalized and made an infraction then it diminishes the capacity for the police to enforce the ordinance. He explained that in the case of an infraction all they can do is respond and write the ticket, but if the people do not cooperate or choose to not open the door, they have no recourse, can not obtain a warrant to enter, can not arrest or disburse, only issue the citation.

Rocks-McQueen stated that he knows that the Council is not against the students, but the impression of the ordinance is that it is targeted at them. Kreun responded that they have to look at ordinances on how they affect the community as a whole and need to have rules that are effective for the best interest of everyone, not just one group. Christensen stated that his feeling is that the ordinance was not put into effect to pick on the students, but to quiet down the neighborhoods and prevent problems that were out of control.

Kreun inquired if there was a way to come to a compromise whereby don’t lose any enforcement ability, but could make it so that it would not be automatic criminal record on the first offense, as enforcement ability is the key reason for this ordinance. McNamara suggested that the maximum fine possible be levied for the offenses whichever way we go and that alone can sometimes be enough of a deterrent. Schroeder responded that can write citation, but can not arrest and take to jail and big aid for them in enforcement is that ability to enter the property if needed to disburse the party and take away any offenders that do not cooperate.

Olson commented that the statistics that are being discussed do not include the UND police statistics and that they have seen an increase in the number of citations issued and that seems to not be enforced there as evenly as the GF Police are doing. Kreun suggested that perhaps we need to visit with UND Police Chief Czapiewski for more details on their call activity and encourage meaningful enforcement.

Rocks-McQueen encouraged the Committee to also include a warning provision in the ordinance. McNamara stated that the police department is already doing this, as there are many more calls than actual arrests and citations. Schroeder stated that they usually ask that the party quiet down and disburse on their first visit unless there are extenuating circumstances. Bakken asked that research be done so that could keep in the teeth needed for arrest if needed, but still be able to be taken off record. Rocks-McQueen restated that since there seems to be some inequity in enforcement, particularly with the University police, he would strongly request that warnings be included in the ordinance, but still include everything that the has been discussed with allowing for arrest, etc. if the need is there. He added that this way the students can have a chance to learn from their mistake and not make it again.

Duquette stated that he believes that we can come up with an appropriate mix of enforcement with penalty, but feels that it is important to let the police department to handle the situation at their discretion and should maybe focus more on the decriminalization and see if that will be enough. Olson agreed that would be all that is being requested.

Bakken made a motion to look at decriminalization and research if there is a way to still arrest. McNamara seconded the motion. The group discussed whether should also recommend increasing the fines to the maximum amount so that further teeth to act as a deterrent. Glassheim commented that seems excessive given what we’re talking about and $1,000 seems too much for first time offense and are seeing cases where neighbors are calling in neighbors, and not always students, but just because they have a dislike for you and need to look at more consistency. Kreun responded that we are not doing this to be overly tough, but because of requests of citizens that have had ongoing problems in their neighborhoods and if take away the criminalization then only thing left is the fine to serve as deterrent.

Duquette stated that it appears consensus is to look at decriminalization, but keeping it tough on penalty. Olson agreed.

Warcup explained that if it is dropped to an infraction the police do lose the ability for a search warrants and that he can see complaints also coming forward if we sharply increase the fines. He continued that with an infraction we can keep the offense in municipal court, as there is no provision to appeal for jury trial, which will also lead to complaints if the offenders do not like the ruling of the judge. He continued that is City Council wants to make a modification or decrease the penalty, removing the mandatory fine, but leave as a Class B misdemeanor in court, then police can still arrest and get warrants. He added that this can also give some discretion to the Prosecutor to work out an appropriate sentence based on the facts of the case with the defendant, which does not exist now. He stated that the only way to get what is being discusses is to eliminate the mandatory $250. Kreun responded that the residents do not have a concern with the amount of the fine, they just want to have the enforcement and deterrent so that the neighborhoods stay quiet and so that when they aren’t the police have the ability to react to the problem. McNamara agreed that the important part is to keep all the enforcement power in the ordinance. Schroeder stated that as long as it remains a Class B misdemeanor the police should have what they need to be able to respond and have no concern with the exact penalty or whether on the offenders record or not.

Rocks-McQueen asked whether something about officers discretion could be added so that officers would know they don’t have to cite every time. Schroeder stated that is already in there. Lt. Sieber shared some situational examples of how the current ordinance has assisted the police with enforcement. Duquette stated that staff would work with the Attorney’s office in drafting a change and then bring it back to committee for further discussion. Olson stated that was all that they are asking for.

Frisch stated that it is not only neighborhood residents that are frustrated with party violators, but that there are more students on campus and off that are not drinking and they are tired of noisy parties too, and as a prevention specialist would like to see more preventive measures start to be endorsed by the university and student government and see a push to educate students so that they don’t have problems. He added that research has shown that harsher penalties stop problems.

The group discussed the potential to also add a higher administrative penalty than the current $1 that we assess, so that then even if get deferred sentence and don’t have to pay a fine will still have some type of monetary penalty, like at district court level where there is automatic administrative charge. Warcup will also research this and bring information back to committee.
Lt. Sieber stated that there are some cities nationwide that also charge for officer time for responding to and disbursing situations and charge on a per officer per hour rate. Kreun added that some also charge for ambulance service if you are a nonresident.

Upon call for the question, Aye: All. Nay: None. Motion Carried.

Motion to adjourn by Bakken. Second by McNamara. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Sherie Lundmark
Admin Spec Sr.