My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_1024
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_1024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/12/2016 10:34:54 AM
Creation date
11/14/2016 10:23:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/24/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, October 24, 2016 <br />Page 20 <br /> <br />er further stated that they carded all customers deemed to be under the age of 50, <br />and scanned that proof of identification into their system. With the size of their <br />company creating millions of transactions, Mr. Zipser advised that they had not <br />had any violations over the last several years prior to this; and even though this <br />was human error, they had immediately trained their entire team on store policies. <br />Mr. Zipser reiterated that they took this seriously, with a sign on the front of the <br />store clearly stating, “Identification Required.” <br /> <br />Councilmember McGehee questioned the viability of carding everyone walking in <br />the door, and how that could be done if minors were not allowed to enter the <br />store, or how they were identified as minors. <br /> <br />Mr. Zipser reviewed their process for carding minor when in the sore with a <br />guardian or parent, but clarified it was not when entering the store. <br /> <br />Mr. Bernard clarified if an obvious minor was observed entering the store, they <br />were asked to leave based on confirming that with their identification card. <br /> <br />Since this was a first violation, Councilmember Willmus stated there was some <br />city flexibility. However, Councilmember Willmus asked that the firm take due <br />diligence not to have a second violation, a point at which the City Council would <br />become very concerned. <br /> <br />Ms. Zipser stated his understanding, and that the firm would make every effort <br />accordingly. <br /> <br />Willmus moved, Etten seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Department to <br />issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Roseville City Code, <br />Section 302.15, for off-sale license holders for the first violation within thirty-six <br />(36) months; with the mandatory minimum penalty of $1,000 and a zero-day sus- <br />pension. <br /> <br />Given the size of the company and assurances heard when this establishment <br />opened three years ago, Councilmember McGehee stated she was more than dis- <br />appointed with their lack of server training. However, Councilmember McGehee <br />expressed her hope that Councilmember Willmus’ warning would serve as suffi- <br />cient for them. <br /> Roll Call <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe. <br />Nays: <br />None. <br /> <br /> <br />c.Presumptive Penalty Approval – Smashburger Restaurant Compliance Fail- <br />ure <br />Lt. Rosand reviewed the specific circumstances of this compliance failure, and <br />follow-up by the Police Department with the employee and manager, as detailed <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.