05-07-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Pawn Ordinances Report May 7, 2003 Page 2 Public Comments: Former Mayor Sonterre addressed the Commission at the last meeting and raised a variety of subjects. His points and our responses are as follows: a. Acceptable Identification. I asked the Police Department if they felt it would be appropriate or advantageous to limit the acceptable ID provisions to include ONLY Minnesota drivers licenses or state issued Ids. The Police Department did not feel such a restriction was necessary b. Guaranteed Enforcement. The manner by which enforcement will occur will be through random checks and through proactive Police work. Regardless, the Police Department will provide the enforcement and will bring any violations to the attention of the City Council for possible license suspension or revocation. c. How will Manager be defined. The definition of a Manager has been added to the ordinance and a requirement added that on average the Manager shall work a minimum of 80 hours per month. d. Fees should reflect that of the highest of the adjacent communities. If the Commission would like to recommend an alternative fee structure than what has already been discussed and agreed upon, a majority recommendation would suffice, keeping in mind that the Council establishes the fees and any recommendations are simply that— recommendations. e. How will a Pawnshop impact the PD. Until a Pawnshop locates in the City, no one is quite sure what the impact will be to the police department. The Chief and his investigators have researched other communities and are familiar with the impacts to other departments and as such, they feel comfortable in the fee structure being proposed. If the impact is such that the Pawnshop is requiring a disproportionate amount of police activity, the fees would be adjusted accordingly. f. Maximum Interest rate. Minnesota Statutes establish the maximum interest rate that can be charged. g. Enforcement. The comment was raised that the ordinance does not explicitly communicate what offenses would warrant what penalties. Rather than attempting to identify the multitude of potential violations and then attempt to associate an appropriate consequence, the Police Department suggested leaving the language as is to allow for discretion and flexibility. h. Prohibited Acts. It was suggested that the prohibited acts identified in Section 516.14 should be referenced in Section 516.13, the section dealing with suspension and revocation. The prohibited acts ARE referenced, however in a broad sense with the following language: “The City Council may suspend or revoke a license issued under this chapter upon a finding of violation of . . . any of the provisions of this chapter” which of course includes Section 516.14. While the prohibited acts COULD be referenced if desired for additional emphasis, it would be redundant.