North St. Paul attorney outlines draft for consumption-and-display permits; council to consider ordinance at next meeting

Attorney Jack Birkbank told the City Council workshop on April 1 that the city is preparing a draft amendment to the North St. Paul City Code to authorize “consumption and display” permits, a kind of liquor authorization that would not allow a business to sell or serve alcohol but would allow patrons to bring and consume their own alcohol on site.

Birkbank said the draft responds to questions the council raised at an earlier meeting and is intended to address liability and public-safety concerns while allowing events such as wedding receptions and private gatherings at eligible venues. “A consumption and display permit is a type of liquor license that does not allow a business to sell or serve alcohol, but does allow people to bring their own,” he said.

The draft requires an externally engaged, trained person to oversee alcohol at events because, Birkbank said, state law prevents that person from being an employee of the venue. The ordinance text under discussion would require the outside monitor to hold training such as TIPS or equivalent and would obligate the venue to keep proof of the monitor’s identity and certification for three years; Birkbank said that matches the practical needs of defending potential liquor-liability claims under the two-year statutory limitation period.

Birkbank also told council members the draft restricts eligible locations to areas where a venue could already qualify for a liquor license (generally commercial/business districts) and would bar permits for locations too close to schools or inside residential zones. He said the draft contemplates a minimum event-insurance requirement for larger gatherings and that, after talking with insurance professionals and a prospective business owner, event insurance is commonly available for one-day gatherings.

“The draft would require event insurance if you have an event of 25 or more people,” Birkbank said, and noted that the threshold of 25 people was a staff suggestion that the council could raise, lower or eliminate. He added that venues could always require higher insurance limits than the city sets as a minimum.

On fees, Birkbank said state statute caps the local fee at $300; a separate $250 state permit fee would also apply, producing a combined initial cost of $550 under the maximum-fee scenario the draft contemplates. He said the council could choose a lower local fee.

Birkbank described two procedural options for the city: treat the permit like a liquor license application that comes to council for a public hearing and final decision, or make it an administrative permit processed by staff without a council hearing. He said the draft currently treats permit approval as a council-level decision but that council could shift that to staff.

Council members discussed insurance and oversight in general terms. One council member urged requiring event insurance for gatherings of any size; another said facilities commonly require organizers to carry their own insurance. Birkbank and staff agreed to revise the draft text as directed and bring the ordinance back for formal introduction and public posting at the next regular City Council meeting.

No ordinance vote occurred at the workshop. Birkbank said the amended draft would be posted to the city website and returned to the council for consideration and a possible vote at the next meeting.

Ending

The workshop discussion ended with the council and staff agreeing to post the revised draft online and schedule the item on the next council meeting agenda so council members and any interested members of the public — including the prospective venue operator — can comment before any final action.