Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-06 Community Alcohol Coalition MinutesOctober 10, 2006 Community Alcohol Coalition 4:00pm - 5:30pm upstairs conference room, City building Members Present - Jenny Haubenreiser, Sean Becker, Becky Robideaux, Lori Guyer, Sheena Rice, Donna LaRue, Stacy Taylor, Alli Gidley, Jenna Caplette Excused members - Andy Knight , Glenn Puffer Nonmembers in attendance - Earl e Lang e land, Heidi Donaldson Approval of minutes: th Sheena moved to approve the minutes from the September 12 meeting, and Becky seconded it. The group approved the minutes. Discussion i t ems Member Recruitment: Stacy Taylor from Mac kenzie River Pizza has been appointed to the CAC and will hold one of the hospitality industry postions . She has worked for Mackenzie River Pizza for three years and has also worked with Alli on responsible be verage service training. Earl e Lang e land is working on his application to hold one of the hospitality positions. Becky Robideaux will be moving to the ? interested citizen ? position and Alli Gidley will apply for the ?p revention s pecialist ? position. Sop hie Mumford, a Bozeman High student, indicated that she would like to rejoin the CAC. This leaves one hospitality position , one medical position, and one non - hospitality business position open. CAC Input Re: Sidewalk Café Ordinance: Jenny reviewed the set of recommendations sent to her from CAC members (re: request for input on the sidewalk café /special permit ordinance draft) . R ecommendations include d : - Assurance that any permit for this be ?revocable,? meaning violators could have their permits revoked af ter some number of violations. - E stablishment s should include some sort of fencing or way to enclose (demarcate) the si dewalk café area . This would have to work with City codes associated with encroachment . - The tables should be intended primarily for food AND beverage service, not just beverages. - Establishments should have the majority of their revenue coming from food. - Establishments would be responsible for monitoring beverage service in these areas to ensure proper service and customer behavior (e.g., underage patrons and allowing patrons to hand drinks to people on the sidewalk). - Additional language should be included to ensure consistent oversight of the area, even when the establishment is busy, and to prevent patrons from other establishments bring ing an open container to a table at the sidewalk café. - Establishments should serve beverages in regular glassware to reduce the temptation of walking away with a drink. - Establishment should post rules and have staff communicate rules to patrons sitting o utside. - The City should have some sort of review process to assess how the permits are working and determine if any problems need to be addressed. Some of these issues were already addressed in the draft ordinance. Some are not feasible ? e.g., there is no way to determine the proportion of food and beverages sold at an establishment. The group went on to discuss some of the specific issues, which included: ? Demarcation or fencing: A few members expressed concern about the impracticality of fencing du e to the limited amount of space businesses w ould be working with. These members feel demarcation of the area would both impede business and not serve any benefit. Others feel this would assist law enforcement and assist the pubic in knowing exactly where drinks can be consumed. One inter pretation of the permit would allow tables both outside the restaurant and along the street. T he draft ordinance indicated otherwise, so clarification from Paul will be needed. Discussion of this will continue at the next m eeting. ? Time : The draft ordinance lists 10:00 p.m. as the end of the outside beverage service for sidewalk café permit s . T his coincides with the current noise ordinance. The group came to a consensus that any time between 10 - 11 is reasonable (probably 11 p .m. would be the best option). The group would like to get additional law enforcement perspective on this . ? Enforcement : Discussion focused on how businesses would ensure that outside patrons don?t violate the open container ordinance. It was suggested tha t signage and staff be trained to ensure that ?only people seated at a table? would be allowed to consume alcohol outside. This might require an added statement in the open container ordinance. ? The question was raised as to h ow th e sidewalk café permits w ould interface with the open con tainer waivers ? which is a separate and specific area of concern (i.e., the ?on/off? problem with open container waivers). One suggestion was to use the same time for both sidewalk café permits and the waivers , meaning the waiver and the sidewalk café permit would both ?expire? at 11 p.m. Whether this would be helpful to law enforcement is not known. The group would like to get more law enforcement perspective on this prior to furthering the discussion. ? Another topic of di scussion focused on how law enforcement could best deter open container violations once the waiver expires. Some members suggested that law enforcement employ ?crack down? strategies, issuing numerous tickets at the point which the open container ordinance goes back into effect. This could be problematic for officers as they are usually understaffed and could potentially face aggressive or violent responses from the public . One member reminded the group that law enforcement is very difficult job and should be a priority when considering these ordinances . Other s concurred with this perspective . Still other members feel the problem would be reduced by having no open container ordinance exist at all. There is not a group consensus on this point. ? Penalties: The group feels that administrative rather than court sanctions would be more effective (given the potential for gridlock with the court system) . Sidewalk Café and special events permits could be revoked based on a number of ?strikes,? which would entail w arnings, fines and license revocation. The group agrees that whatever policy governs these permits must be enforceable. Discussion of th ese issue s will continue at the next meeting. Further l aw enforcement perspective will be requested. Meeting adjour ned at 5:30 p.m. Next meeting will be Tuesday November 14, 2006