My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0222
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0222
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2010 12:42:56 PM
Creation date
3/12/2010 12:42:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/22/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
Ywb1~~. ~OP~ <br />~~~G~ ~,~- ~a~.Jl~ <br />Margaret Driscoll <br />From: Jeff [Jeff@AminoAcids.com] <br />Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 11:27 AM <br />To: *RVCouncil; Rick Mathwig; Margaret Driscoll; Bill Malinen <br />Subject: Proposed changes to City Code, Chapt. 302 Liquor Control <br />Importance: High <br />All, <br />I am a supporter of Tammy and Dan's new language for the above referenced city code. <br />The new policy has teeth and provides a clear expectation from the citizens of Roseville to <br />the City establishments responsible for selling alcohol. <br />There is an issue of equity within the penalty structure that I would like to address some <br />simple changes to the Violation/Penalty chart. <br />It is important that you first understand why I see this as inequitable structure for all <br />businesses selling alcohol in Roseville. Simply put, a restaurant, grocery store or <br />convenience store will not share the same type of impact from a 60 day suspension as <br />would a liquor store. The former has no other source of income and would, in effect, be <br />put out of business for 2 months. The restaurants, grocery stores and convenience stores <br />would have a negligible impact, but would not be forced to completely shut down their <br />operation and literally shut their doors. I highly doubt that many of our existing liquor <br />stores would weather a 60 day suspension. This leaves me wondering if the 3rd violation <br />of 60 days is too strong in relationship to the 4th violation of total revocation. <br />Therefore I suggest the following simple changes be made to Dan and Tammy's <br />Violation/Penalty Chart to make the code more equitable: <br />Have two penalty structures, <br />. 1) Liquor Stores <br />. 2) Restaurants, Convenience stores, Grocery stores <br />• Liquor Stores change to: <br />. 1st violation: 1,000 and 1 day <br />• 2nd violation: 2,000 and 5 days <br />• 3rd violation: 2,000 and 10 days <br />. 4th violation: Revocation <br />Restaurants, Convenience stores change to: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.