CC_Minutes_2010_0222 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ywb1~~. ~OP~ ~~~G~ ~,~- ~a~.Jl~ Margaret Driscoll From: Jeff [Jeff@AminoAcids.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 11:27 AM To: *RVCouncil; Rick Mathwig; Margaret Driscoll; Bill Malinen Subject: Proposed changes to City Code, Chapt. 302 Liquor Control Importance: High All, I am a supporter of Tammy and Dan's new language for the above referenced city code. The new policy has teeth and provides a clear expectation from the citizens of Roseville to the City establishments responsible for selling alcohol. There is an issue of equity within the penalty structure that I would like to address some simple changes to the Violation/Penalty chart. It is important that you first understand why I see this as inequitable structure for all businesses selling alcohol in Roseville. Simply put, a restaurant, grocery store or convenience store will not share the same type of impact from a 60 day suspension as would a liquor store. The former has no other source of income and would, in effect, be put out of business for 2 months. The restaurants, grocery stores and convenience stores would have a negligible impact, but would not be forced to completely shut down their operation and literally shut their doors. I highly doubt that many of our existing liquor stores would weather a 60 day suspension. This leaves me wondering if the 3rd violation of 60 days is too strong in relationship to the 4th violation of total revocation. Therefore I suggest the following simple changes be made to Dan and Tammy's Violation/Penalty Chart to make the code more equitable: Have two penalty structures, . 1) Liquor Stores . 2) Restaurants, Convenience stores, Grocery stores • Liquor Stores change to: . 1st violation: 1,000 and 1 day • 2nd violation: 2,000 and 5 days • 3rd violation: 2,000 and 10 days . 4th violation: Revocation Restaurants, Convenience stores change to: