My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
gr00090_000024_pg29
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
MNHistoricalSocietyFiles (CC Minutes page-by-page 1958-1981)
>
gr00090_000024
>
gr00090_000024_pg29
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2011 2:33:44 PM
Creation date
4/12/2011 9:13:23 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
- 3 - <br />Mayor Rustad called for further comments from the floor. <br />Councilman Blanchard then commented on the defendents attorney's statement that <br />there were bugs to be expected in the first few months of operation. Councilman <br />Blanchard stated that the previous experience of at least half of the owners <br />should have been sufficient to realize that the problems which were there were <br />of a magnitude which required immediate solution. <br />Mr. Goldberg stated that problems were different from place to place. He stated <br />that he had hired some persons that weren't too good. He also said that he was <br />unaware of the letter sent to the Mermaid to the attention of Mr. Rozman but he <br />still hired four men to watch the door. <br />Councilman Neisen stated that the owners were here the night that the hearing <br />was set on March 16th. <br />Attorney Ketroser stated that these men were businessmen and that they would <br />bend over backwards to comply with the laws. He also stated that it takes <br />time to get oriented in a new place, and that three months is not a very long <br />time. <br />Councilman Blanchard stated that he can appreciate the investment of the owners <br />but why wasn't the first letter adhered to? Owners had been negligent he felt <br />since there were repeated violations up to the 15th. He stated that he would <br />favor a one week suspension. <br />Councilman Hodges stated that he would favor probation but not a suspension, <br />since it is the first time they had been before us. <br />Attorney Ketroser stated that he felt the suspension was a bit harsh. He stated <br />that the employment and the continuity of the management of the operation would <br />be upset. He felt that a sincere effort to observe the conduct of the establishment <br />was all that was needed. <br />Mayor Rustad stated that this should have been reflected by their actions previously. <br />Attorney Ketroser stated that the suspension implied that the owners were not trying. <br />Councilman Neisen stated that it seems that it was only after the hearing was set <br />that they made an effort to comply with the liquor laws. He stated that a hearing <br />shouldn't have to be called, that a letter should have been enough. <br />Mayor Rustad stated that he felt the liquor ordinances were some of the most <br />important ones in the Village and that under the circumstances he would go <br />along with Councilman Blanchard on a weeks suspension. <br />Councilman Hodges stated that he felt the owners could still maintain the <br />situation with a brief suspension. <br />Attorney Meyers gave a brief summary of the background of liquor in Mounds View. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.