HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/2012 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 13,2012
The following are the minutes for the regular meeting of the City Council held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
November 13, 2012 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40'h Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights,
Minnesota.
1. CALL TO ORDEWROLL CALL/INVOCATION
Mayor Gary Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:09 PM
Present: Mayor Peterson, Councilmembers Williams,Nawrocki, Diehm, and Schmitt.
Pastor Bill Hugo of St. Matthew Lutheran Church gave the invocation
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -recited
3. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA
Nawrocki asked why the City Council Meeting from October 22, 2012 and the agenda for tonight's
meeting were not on cable.
Leonhardt indicated that the City Council Meeting was scheduled to be on the cable channel and she
would check into the matter.
Fehst reminded the council and residents that this Friday is the Mayor's Taste of Columbia Heights
Holiday Kickoff at Murzyn Hall and encouraged all to attend.
Peterson stated that there will be food samples available from Sarna's Classic Grill, Puerta Del Sol,
Yara Grill, Royal Orchid, Miller's Bar and Grill, Tasty Pizza and Chocolatier, Kevin Lindee.
4. PROCLAMATIONS PRESENTATIONS RECOGNITION ANNOUNCEMENTS GUESTS
Mayor Peterson wanted to thank everyone that participated in voting on November 6 th. The City of
Columbia Heights has a history of high voter turnout.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Nawrocki requested to remove items B, C, and D for discussion. City Manager
Walt Fehst took Councilmembers through the remaining consent agenda items.
A. Approve minutes of October 22,2012
Motion to approve minutes of October 22, 2012 City Council Meeting
B. Adopt Resolution No. 2012-141, Canvassing General Election Returns of November 6 2012-
Removed
C. Adopt Resolution 2012-142, a Resolution continuing the Anoka County HRA Levy Program
Removed
D. Award audit services contract for fiscal years 2012-2014. - Removed
City Council Minutes
Tuesday,November 13,2012
Page 2 of 11
E Approve Business License Applications
Motion to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for November 13, 2012 as
presented.
F Approval of the attached list of rental housing licenses
Motion to approve the items listed for rental license application for November 13, 2012 in that
they have met the requirements of the Property Maintenance Code.
Motion by Councilmember Williams, seconded by Councilmember Schmitt, to approve the
Consent Agenda items with the exception of items B, C, and D. Upon vote, all ayes, Motion
carried.
Item B (Removed from Consent)Discussion on resolution No. 2012-141, Canvassing General
Election Returns of November 6, 2012.
Nawrocki stated he wanted to inform the public of the results of the General Election.
Fehst presented the results of the November 6, 2012 General Municipal Elections as follows:
The number of ballots cast for Mayor(1 seat): Gary Peterson at 5349, Bob Oden at 2609. The
number of ballots cast for Council Member(2 seats): Bobby Williams at 3930, Bruce Nawrocki
at 3401, Catherine Vesley at 3388 and Stan Hoium at 2725. Since Vesley lost by less than one
half of a percent, the statue allows for a recount, which was requested. The recount will be
Thursday,November 15, 2012 at Anoka County Elections and Voter Registration Offices in
Anoka beginning at 10:00 AM.
Leonhardt indicated that if there are any changes as a result of the recount,the Canvass Board
will need to re-canvass the results.
Diehm asked what the overall voter turnout was for Columbia Heights.
Leonhardt stated it was around 83% and Columbia Heights typically has the highest voter
turnout in Anoka County.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Schmitt to move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2012-
141,being ample copies available for the public. Upon Vote, all ayes,Motion carried.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Schmitt, move to adopt Resolution No. 2012-141, being a
Resolution Canvassing Municipal General Election Returns and approve the signing of the
Abstract. Upon vote, all ayes, Motion carried.
Item C (Removed from Consent)—Discussion on Resolution 2012-142, a Resolution
continuing the Anoka County HRA Levy Program
Nawrocki indicated that he voted against this previously at the EDA Meeting. He asked what the
approximate five year cost would be. Clark stated it would be $950,000— 1,000,000 gross.
Nawrocki stated these are tough times for residents throughout Columbia Heights and we should
not be using extra tax dollars to make the situation worse. Williams stated we are not using extra
tax money; we are using money to improve our city.
City Council Minutes
Tuesday,November 13,2012
Page 3 of 11
Peterson called for a roll count vote: Move to Adopt Resolution 2012-142, a Resolution
continuing the Anoka County HRA Levy Program.
Schmitt, nay, Williams, aye, Diehm aye,Nawrocki, nay, Peterson, aye. 2 nays, 3 ayes,Motion
carried.
Item D - (Removed from Consent)Discussion on award Audit Services Contract for fiscal
years 2012-2014.
Nawrocki stated he was glad that we went out to bid, and stated we should be doing it on more of
our specialty contracts.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Schmitt, move to award Audit Services Contract to HLB
Tautges Redpath, LTD for fiscal years 2012-2014. Upon Vote, all ayes, Motion carried.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS -None
7. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
A. Other Ordinances and Resolutions
First Reading of Ordinance No. 1610 Establishing Violation Policy for Liquor Licenses
Clark stated at the present time,the city code does not have an administrative penalty index and
the council directed us to take a look at developing a system. At that time the council gave us
direction indicating we should look at incorporating a best practices matrix. If owners are made
to comply with the ordinance, we will see more uniformity. What we are looking for tonight is
an action for recommendation to move this to a second reading. If this is moved on we will be
sending this ordinance to all liquor license holders within the city, making them aware of the
policy and they are able to come before the next council meeting with any problems or questions,
since this meeting would be open to the public.
Diehm expressed her support with restructuring this program. We take this very seriously and I
think our goal is compliance not punishment. This helps establishments train their employees,
rather than punish them.
Nawrocki stated he recognizes the problems,but it seems like we are double punishing. He asked
what neighboring communities are doing and what their penalties are.
Diehm stated this is not something new that we are adding. The license to sell is given to the
owner, not to the employee selling the liquor; therefore the owner needs to be made accountable
for training his/her employees. Diehm feels this would be a proactive measure.
Clark stated that they want to separate out this ordinance and the issue of the owner and violation
being reported to, which will be discussed separately in December. This is done to avoid any
confusion between the policies. We already have this in place for cigarettes sales and we are
trying to mirror the policy. Most every community does have a matrix spelled out for doing this
with the first violation being around$750. The issue is not to punish, it is to be in compliance.
This is a pretty straight forward system.
City Council Minutes
Tuesday,November 13,2012
Page 4 of 11
Motion by Diehm, seconded by Schmitt, move to waive the reading of Ordinance No 1610, there
being ample copies available to the public. Upon Vote, all ayes, Motion carried.
Motion by Diehm, seconded by Schmitt, move to set the second reading of Ordinance No. 1610
for Monday,November 26, 2012 at approximately 7:00 pm in the City Council Chambers. Upon
vote, all ayes, Motion carried.
B. Bid Considerations -None
C. New Business and Reports-None
8. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Report of the City Manager
Fehst stated he would have Scott Clark update the mayor and council on the Parkview Villa North
and South possible sale.
Clark stated the city has received notice from Aeon, who worked with the city on preparing an
application to HUD for the dissolution of the Public Housing Agency (PHA, which owns and
operates Parkview Villa), that they will be rejecting our application. One reason for this is a new
federally funded program call RAD (Rental Assistance Demonstration Project). Before the city
submitted the application to HUD, we looked into the legislation and the amount of money that was
needed for this RAD Program and determined it would not be feasible for the city to go with this
program. We are continuing on with the best possible outcome of complete elimination of the
existing contracts and going back to a Section 8 Contract. Today the city submitted a letter asking
HUD for removal of our original application. We will be looking at doing another process called
Voluntary Conversion. We will have to demonstrate to HUD, based on a certain rent structure,that
it is cost effective to them to dissolve the PHA Annual Contribution Contract and roll it over to a
Section 8 building. They are working through numbers with HUD and also going out and trying to
find GAP financing. Next Wednesday, Aeon staff is meeting with the County regarding HOME
funds. Since this project will be in 2013, the city will be able to utilize the 2013 modernization
funds. The city will be having another community meeting with residents at Parkview Villa to
inform them they will receive relocation notification, even though they will probably not be
relocated. We have had to take a step back in the process, but we are still confident we will get there.
Nawrocki stated he had asked for a report on the Volunteer Firefighter Fund and to date he has not
received anything on this.
Fehst stated he was sure that this information had already been given to him, but would check into it.
Nawrocki indicated he has received a letter regarding a complaint of traffic accidents on 42"d
Avenue and 7�h Street and wanted to know what the traffic commission's outcome was. He would
also like some follow up reported to the resident complaining. Another complaint letter was sent to
him in regards to city employees parking on 40ffi Avenue and wanted to know if we could put some
short term parking on Mill Street.
Fehst stated he would take a look at that and maybe the utility payment drop box could also be
moved to Mill Street.
City Council Minutes
Tuesday,November 13,2012
Page 5 of 11
Report of the City Attorney-
Hoeft indicated he had nothing to report at this time.
9. CITIZENS FORUM
Peterson stated we just recognized Veterans Day and he had the opportunity to go to a Twins game
and people held up signs that thanked the veterans and formed a waiving flag. He also indicated
SACA and Meals on Wheels could use some volunteers and/or donations for the upcoming holidays.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:08 PM
Peterson stated: Don't forget our service men and women. They are doing a great thing for us.
Don't take ours yes too seriously and do a random act of kindness.
Tori Le nh City Clerk/Council Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-141
CANVASSING MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION RETURNS
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights, did on the 6th day of November 2012, conduct and hold a
General Municipal Election for the purpose of voting on candidates for two offices of Council Member; and
WHEREAS,the City of Columbia Heights, did on the 6th day of November 2012, conduct and hold a
General Municipal Election for the purpose of voting on a candidate for one office of Mayor; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights, at a meeting of said Council/Canvass
Board, held on the 13th day of November 2012 did canvass the returns and results of said General
Municipal Election; and
WHEREAS,the following results were determined by said canvass of said General Municipal Election, to
wit:
TOTAL BALLOTS CAST IN ELECTION:
Valid Votes Cast for One 2-Year Mayoral Seat
Gary L. Peterson 5349
Bob Odden 2609
Valid Votes Cast for Two 4-Year Council Seats
Bobby Williams 3930
Bruce Nawrocki 3401
Stanley Hoium 2725
Catherine Vesley 3388
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia
Heights, that Gary L. Peterson is hereby declared to be the elected candidate for the Mayoral Seat and
City Council Minutes
Tuesday,November l3,2Ol2
Page 6ofll
Bobby Williams, and Br000I4on'rooki are hereby declared tohnthe elected candidates for the two four-year
Council Seats effective January l, 20l3.
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS RESOLUTION 2012-142
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ANOKA COUNTY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR
FISCAL YEARS 2013 to 2017
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights is an Anoka County munioipa}ih/, and such in a rapidly growing
and important segment of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region, made up of rich variety of vital, desirable
oonnnouniUes'` and
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights Council rnonnbere believe that the residents of Columbia Heights
would realize many benefits from expansion of the Anoka County tax base, including but not limited to; the
creation of local job opportunities, redeveloping certain sites within the City, as well an maintaining and
improving the City's housing stock, wider sharing of tax burden, and access to enhanced infrastructure,
services, and retail and business activities, and,
WHEREAS, in order to expand the local tax base, the Anoka County Board of Commissioners has
indicated an interest in fostering a regional approach to economic development in Anoka County, and,
WHEREAS, in 2007 a statutorily formed citizens exploratory committee recommended to the Board of
Commissioners that the Anoka County Housing and Redevelopment Authority be granted the powers of an
economic development authority, and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2007, the Anoka County Board of Commissioners, after fulfilling the statutory
requirements, did authorize their Housing and Redevelopment Authority to exercise the powers of an
economic development authority, and,
WHEREAS, MN 8tot. 409.1082 requires that a municipality shall, declare its willingness, by neao|ubon, to
join the county in its economic development activities, and.
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution #2007-156 for the initial five year cycle, and
WHEREAS, the City's Economic Development Authority made a recommendation to continue this program
for an additional five years based on8 vote 0f5to2, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Columbia Heights does hereby declare its support
of Anoka County and its countywide economic development objectives and activities, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Columbia Heights does hereby elect to participate in Anoka
County Housing and Redevelopment Authority economic development activities, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Columbia Heights dnao hereby elect to participate in the
Anoka County Housing and Redevelopment Authority economic development activities to request funds to
support the City's redevelopment and housing maintenance and improvement goals for fiscal years 2013
through 2017. and,
BEUlFFURTHER RESOLVED that since the subject levy funds are transmitted to the City, through the
Anoka County Housing and Redevelopment Authority as a simple pass through, the City Council formally
City Council Minutes
Tuesday,November 13,2012
Page 7 of 11
requests that the annual administrative fee be reduced from 15% to 10% to more accurately reflect the
costs associated with this transfer.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this resolution and attachments are to be made a part of the permanent
records of the City of Columbia Heights.
Passed this 13th day of November, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 1610
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005
RELATING TO ALCOHOL RELATED LICENSE VIOLATIONS
5.510 POLICY FOR ALCOHOL LICENSE VIOLATIONS
It is the goal of the City of Columbia Heights to have each liquor licensee comply with the law 100% of the
time in relation to the ordinance regulating liquor. The City of Columbia Heights will maintain staff to
complete annual compliance checks,periodically check establishments for compliance with hours and
license conditions. The City will act as a resource to provide server training or to direct businesses to
approved training on an annual basis. The City wishes to have all business choose to be a Best Practices
liquor licensee.
BEST PRACTICES:
Best Practices licensees will have the benefit of following the"Best Practices"violation matrix. The Best
Practices program is voluntary and serves as a cooperative venture between licensees and the City to meet
the goals of the City laid out in the city code. Best Practices licensees will fill out an application from the
City of Columbia Heights committing their establishment to working towards 100% compliance with the
applicable ordinances and Minnesota State Statutes.
Required Activities:
Best Practices licensee will agree to keep records of Best Practices activities and to have them available for
inspection. The Best Practices licensee will have 75%of all alcohol selling staff trained by the Columbia
Heights Police Department, Minnesota Department of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement,the Minnesota
Municipal Beverage Association, the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association, (or any other organization
who provides similar training upon approval by City's Liquor Licensing Department) on an annual basis.
Best Practices licensees will have a written internal training program for new employees and a written
policy requiring identification on anyone appearing to be 40 years old or younger.
Optional Activities:
Best Practices licensees will do four(three if they do integrated ID scanner on register) of the following:
• Continuously certify 75%of all employees who sell alcohol are trained.
City Council Minutes
Tuesday,November 13,2012
Page 8 of 11
• Internal employee reward/recognition program for employees who catch underage customers.
• Run an approved internal compliance program.
• Automated ID card scanner integrated into cash register.
• Pre-arrange to meet with staff and prosecutor on violations.
• Have a policy to check ID on every sale.
• Have a policy to work with the Columbia Heights Police Department to prevent secondary resale of
alcohol.
• Have a minimum age of 21 for employees selling alcohol products.
PROCESS FOLLOWED FOR VIOLATIONS
The purpose of this section is to establish a standard by which the City determines the length of a license
suspension, revocation, and/or civil penalty. This policy shall apply to all on-sale and off-sale license
holders. These penalties are deemed to be appropriate for all violations. Licensees shall be informed
that this policy applies to the License Holder and does not apply to the Criminal Charges against
the person who actually violates the law. The City Council may choose to deviate from the prescribed
penalty is there are extenuating circumstances. Should the City Council deviate from the adopted
policy, they must take official action and document the reasons for the deviation.
The City Council may only consider the penalty portion of the action. Should the licensee wish to
appeal the facts of a violation, they must request a due process hearing.
A. Notice: Upon a determination that a violation of a city ordinance or state law relating to alcoholic
beverages has occurred in a licensed premises,the licensee will be issued a notice, either personally
or by U.S. Mail, setting forth the nature, date, and time of the alleged violation, the administrative
penalties if applicable, the process for appealing the determination and the penalty for failing to
comply with the penalty. Mailed notice will be considered complete upon deposit in the U.S. Mail
addressed to the licensee at the most current address contained in City records.
B. Compliance: Within 14 calendar days of the date of the notice, a licensee may comply with the
penalties set out in the notice by paying the administrative fine and notifying the Licensing Clerk of
the dates the licensee chooses to submit to any imposed suspension. Suspension days must be
consecutive business days the last of which must not be more than 60 days after the date of the
Notice.
C. Hearing: Any licensee who receives notice of a violation may, within 14 calendar days of the date
of issuance of the Notice, request in writing a hearing before the City Council. A request for a
hearing must be submitted to the Licensing Clerk who will cause the request to be placed on the
agenda of the next regular City Council meeting that will be held not less than 15 calendar days after
receipt of the request. Written notice stating the date, time, and place of the hearing will be provided
to the licensee no less than 10 calendar days before the hearing. Such notice will be considered
complete upon deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed to the licensee at the most current address shown
in City records. The City Council may sustain, dismiss or amend the violation, and may sustain,
waive, reduce, or increase any penalty provided for in this Chapter, except that no penalty may
City Council Minutes
Tuesday,November 13,2012
Page 9 of 11
exceed the maximum permitted under state law. The City Council, if it sustains or amends the
violation, will establish a new compliance date for the penalties imposed.
D. Revocation: Notwithstanding any provisions in this Chapter to the contrary, a violation for which
the established penalty is revocation must be forwarded to the City Council for disposition. The
notice of violation will include the nature, date, and time of the violation and the date,time, and
place of the Council's consideration, which will be not less than 10, nor more than 20 calendar days
after the date of service of the notice.Notice will be considered complete upon personal service on
the licensee or upon deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed to the licensee at the most current address
shown in City records. The Council may sustain, dismiss, or amend the violation. If Council
sustains or amends the violation it may revoke the license or impose such other penalty it deems as
appropriate provided the penalty does not exceed the maximum permitted under state law.
E. Multiple Violations: Each incident with respect to date,time, place, and persons involved, will be
deemed a single violation for the purposes of imposing administrative penalties notwithstanding that
an incident may involve more than one offense. The City Council may take multiple offenses into
consideration when determining whether to deviate from the established penalties for any violation.
F. Violations When Another is Pending: Any violation that occurs at a licensed premise while a
prior violation is pending for those same premises will be treated as a separate violation and
considered a subsequent violation for purposes of imposing an administrative penalty.
G. Submission to Council in Lieu of Administrative Procedures: With the concurrence of the City
Manager, or their designees, the Licensing Clerk, in lieu of accepting the administrative penalties
provided for in Section §5.510,may submit any violation to the City Council for review and
determination. The decision must take into consideration the number and seriousness of the offenses
allegedly committed in a single incident. The decision to submit a violation to the Council must be
included in the initial violation notice along with the date, time, and place the Council will consider
the matter.
XXXX: PENALTIES
A. Penalty for Noncompliance: In addition to any criminal penalties which may be imposed by a court
of law, the City Council may suspend a license for up to 60 days, may revoke a license and/or may
impose a civil fine on a licensee not to exceed$2,000.00 for each violation on a finding that the
license holder or its employee has failed to comply with a statute, rule or ordinance relating to
alcoholic beverages, malt beverages, or wine.
B. Minimum Penalty: The purpose of this section is to establish a standard by which the City Council
determines the civil fine, the length of license suspensions and the propriety of revocations, and shall
apply to all premises licensed under this chapter. These penalties are presumed to be appropriate for
every case; however, the council may deviate in an individual case where the council finds that there
City Council Minutes
Tuesday,November 13,2012
Page 10 of 11
exist certain extenuating or aggravating circumstances, making it more appropriate to deviate, such
as, but not limited to, a licensee's efforts in combination with the state or city to prevent the sale of
alcohol to minors or, in the converse, when a licensee has a history of repeated violations of state or
local liquor laws. When deviating from these standards, the council will provide written findings
that support the penalty selected. When a violation occurs, the staff shall provide information to the
City Council to either assess the presumptive penalty or depart upward or downward based on
extenuating or aggravating circumstances. The staff shall notify the licensee of the information
being considered and acted upon by the City Council.
C. Penalties:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the sale of alcoholic beverages to a person under
the age of 21, the sale of alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated person, or the failure of
an on-sale licensee to take reasonable steps to prevent a person from leaving the licensed premises
with an alcoholic beverage will subject the licensee to the following administrative penalties:
("Best Practices" applies only to license holders who are enrolled in the program at the time of the
violations)
FOR BEST PRACTICES LICENSE HOLDERS:
Type of License 1"Violation 2"d Violation 3`d Violation 4th Violation
On Sale Intox. $250 $500 and 3 day $1,000 and 5 day Revocation
Liquor suspension suspension
On/Off Sale Beer $250 $500 and 3 day $1,000 and 5 day Revocation
suspension suspension
Wine/beer $250 $500 and 3 day $1,000 and 5 day Revocation
suspension suspension
Club Liquor $250 $500 and 3 day $1,000 and 5 days Revocation
suspension suspension
FOR OTHER LICENSE HOLDERS:
Type of License 15t Violation 2"d Violation 3`d Violation 4th Violation
On Sale Intox. $500 $750 and 5 day $1,000 and 10 Revocation
Liquor suspension day suspension
On/Off Sale Beer $500 $750 and 5 day $1,000 and 10 Revocation
suspension day suspension
Wine/beer $500 $750 and 5 day $1,000 and 10 Revocation
suspension day suspension
Club Liquor $500 $750 and 5 day $1,000 and 10 Revocation
suspension days suspension
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the following violations will subject the licensee to
the following administrative penalties:
Type of 1"Violation 2"d Violation 3`d Violation 4th Violation
Violation
Refusal to allow $1,000 and 7 $2,000 and 14 Revocation N/A
City inspectors days suspension days suspension
City Council Minutes
Tuesday,November 13,2012
Page 11 of 11
or police
admission to
premises
After hours sale, $1,000 and 7 $2,000 and 14 Revocation N/A
display or days suspension days suspension
consumption of
alcoholic
beverages
Illegal gambling $1,000 and 7 $2,000 and 14 Revocation N/A
on premises days suspension days suspension
Commission of a Revocation N/A N/A N/A
felony related to
licensed activity
Sale of alcoholic Revocation N/A N/A N/A
beverages while
license is under
suspension
Sale of Revocation N/A N/A N/A
intoxicating
liquor with only
3.2 percent malt
liquor license
(3) Any prior violation that occurred more than 24 calendar months immediately preceding the most
current violation will not be considered in determining successive violations.
(4) The nature of the most current violation will determine the appropriate penalty as established by
paragraphs (1) or(2) above,provided,however,that any and all violations occurring within 24
months immediately preceding the most current violation will be considered in determining
successive violations.
(5) Any licensee who fails to pay an administrative fine or adhere to a suspension, whether imposed
by this Section or the City Council, within the allotted time period will be subject to an additional
suspension of the license for a period of time as determined by the City Council,but not to exceed
60 consecutive days. Any licensee who fails to comply with a City Council imposed license
suspension resulting from a prior non-compliance with the administrative penalties imposed by
this Chapter is subject to license revocation.
(6) Nothing in this Section will prohibit the City from seeking criminal prosecution of any alleged
violation of this Chapter in addition to any administrative penalties provided for herein.