My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0125
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0125
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2010 3:47:59 PM
Creation date
2/12/2010 3:47:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/25/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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, January 25, 2010 <br />Page 14 <br />Councilmember Ihlan sought input from a representative of Mothers Against <br />Drunk Driving (MADD) related to the original penalty structure versus the pro- <br />posed structure before any decision is made on the revisions in how those revi- <br />sions may impact incentives for compliance with reduced penalties. <br />Mayor Klausing requested that staff follow up with a MADD representative be- <br />fore the next consideration of the revisions. <br />Further discussion among Councilmembers and Acting Police Chief Rick Math- <br />wig included frequency of compliance checks related to prosecution versus other <br />violations (i.e., Social Hosting Ordinance); house parties versus licensed busi- <br />nesses; police addressing a minor purchasing alcohol of the evidence rather than <br />against the license holder; potential occurrence of multiple violations; <br />Councilmember Ihlan requested additional background information from Acting <br />Chief Mathwig regarding recent cases of multiple violations and how the pro- <br />posed ordinance would have impacted those businesses, or whether there was an <br />actual problem with repeat violators, particularly in selling to underage people or <br />sales to inebriated persons. <br />Mayor Klausing requested that staff provide that information, to ensure that the <br />law of unintended consequences didn't come into play with high penalty amounts <br />and conditions drastically impacting the viability of a business and forcing a sig- <br />nificant number of employees from their job. <br />Mayor Klausing thanked Councilmembers Roe and Pust for their work and ra- <br />tionale proposed in a more graduated system. <br />Additional discussion included whether assistance from the City's Legislative <br />Representatives to revise State Statute to increase the penalty cap was indicated; <br />and whether 60 days was appropriate for a third violation, with the City Council <br />retaining discretion for presumptive penalties. <br />Councilmember Johnson spoke in total support of the proposed revisions, opining <br />that it was a great policy, and he thanked Councilmembers Pust and Roe for their <br />work; supporting putting the onus on the manager and his trained employees, en- <br />suring that that training was kept at that level and making management responsi- <br />ble in operating their business. <br />Further discussion ensued regarding the rationale in proposing a five day versus a <br />30 day suspension for the second violation; the due process hearing and non- <br />renewal options as addressed in State Statute and referenced in City Ordinance; <br />proof of training upon each license renewal (Page 1, Section C) to be incorporated <br />into the renewal form processed by the City's Finance Department; and ensuring <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.