2009_0720_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Lt. Rick Mathwig Ju�ie 30, 2009 Page 2 circumstances...when deviating froin these standards, the Council will provide «�ritten findings that support the penalty selecied. It is my understandin� that there �vere some concerns, in the Davanni coniext, that a revocation wauld be tao harsh; particularly when a lic�nsee cannot reapply far a license for a five�-year period. This five-year period is established by state law, and cannot be modificd. Therefore, it is simply a fact tl�at the Council needs to ui3derstand the implications of a license revocation for a� licensee. `�Vith r�spect to tf�e Da.�anni circu�nst�=��es, th�re are a n��rnbPr o�th�c�retic�� ticns available as folla�vs: 1. Leave tlie Code as is.. *The Council already has the freedom to depart fro�n a pi•esumptivc penalty of revocation. In other wards, rccognizin� il�e i:17�lication o�'a revocation, the Cauncil cot�id choose not lo impose a revacation in a glven case. 2. Remove t�e sale of �Iccihc�lic be��erages during suspensian offense frona the PresiEmptive rcvocation lis�. �This would n��an such a violation would fall into the scco�ld cate�ory of offenses, where a violatlon might oilly �varr�nt a presl�inptive penalty of a written �j�arning; a�- �� i�t�ll tine and short suspension: 3. Creat� a ne�v intcrmecli,�te class of violations. *r[�his might be considered ifthe Council believes a �:,rest�iriptive revocaiion i� ioo severc �� ce�tain offenses. F��r c�an�ple, the Council might indicate that the prt•esuinptive pen�lty for setling alcoholic beverages dL�ring a st�spcnsion is disqlialifcation from reapplying fnr a lic�l2o�- liccr�sc i-or the subsequent license period (c�ne year). 4. Modify Subpari I3 of Coc3e to read: "l�lle follo«'ii1`� violations are ��resumed to require �•cvocation or �l sit`��ifcant siispension afthe license on the first vio�<�tion....