CC_Minutes_2016_1024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 24, 2016 Page 23 to try and was still their plan that one of those employees always on duty was a manager, and that the store could not be opened without a General, Assistant or Shift Manager available. Ms. Becker noted the goal was that those employees were older and more experienced. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Murphy stated that approximate- ly 5% to 6% of their sales are liquor based. Councilmember McGehee suggested the establishment may consider giving up their liquor license if that was the case. Councilmember McGehee noted her disappointment with one of the last viola- tions in 2011 or 2014 when the employee making the sale in that case also was a manager, and she had found their attitude to be very lax about the violation. While the training is available and usually completed, Councilmember McGehee noted there seemed to be little buy-in from employees and a lack of understanding of the importance and consequences of this compliance failure situation. There- fore, Councilmember McGehee suggested it perhaps was just too small a percent- age of what employees typically did during their shifts. Ms. Becker stated they would get a policy to Lt. Rosand prior to renewal time. City Manager Trudgeon referenced the bench handout, as part of tonight’s RCA, dated October 24, 2016 in response to a question received earlier today referenc- ing this alcohol compliance failure and prior violation March 28, 2011, but out- side the 36-month window outlined in ordinance. Etten moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Roseville City Code, Section 302.15, for on-sale license holders for the second violation within thirty- amending the six (36) months; with the mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000, proposed five-day suspension to a ten day suspension, with those dates at the discretion of the Police Chief. City Attorney Gaughan clarified that if there was any deviation from the presump- tive penalty in ordinance that deviation needed to be supported by written findings to deviate. City Attorney Gaughan noted the presumptive policy proscribed in this case was $2,000 with a five-day suspension. Councilmember Etten identified two findings as aggravating factors in seeking to increase the penalty: 1) The 2014 violation under the same proscribed penalty per ordinance for a similar violation had resulted in the establishment making promises to change patterns; but instead had resulted in the second violation of like na- ture, therefore providing no obvious change in that pattern; and 2) Concerns that 50% f the trained staff for alcohol sales were found to be out- of-compliance with their training.