My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2019-02-21 Liquor Adjudication Board Minutes (2)
PublicDocuments
>
Liquor Control
>
Liquor Adjudication Board
>
Minutes
>
2019
>
2019-02-21 Liquor Adjudication Board Minutes (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/31/2019 4:24:38 PM
Creation date
5/31/2019 4:24:10 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
Smith: Renee, can you tell us what the recommendation is? <br />Schoen: Yes, thank you, Chair. The original license was issued on December 5, 2012. <br />There've been no previous violations. The Department is recommending a $150 fine to be paid <br />within thirty (30) days upon receipt of the Decision and order. Similar to the last case. Payment <br />in this case was due on November 15 (2018), they attempted to make payment via mail on <br />November 17. That payment was not received by the Department until the 20th, but it wasn't <br />signed, the check wasn't signed. Another check was issued on the 27th and when we tried to <br />cash that, it was not payable and then the Department received cash payment on <br />December 25, 2018. <br />Smith: okay. I've got a few questions. Does anybody else have any comments? <br />There were no other comments from the Board Members. <br />Smith: This establishment had the license from 2012? <br />Schoen: Yes. <br />Smith: But they weren't open in 2012. They've only opened in the last two years. Was it an <br />assigned license? <br />Gonzalez: It may have been transferred and that's why we say the license number was <br />originally issued in 2012. <br />Smith: Okay. I guess my concern is that I try to compare the last case that we assessed a <br />$150 fine where it seemed like it was an oversight and they immediately paid it and in this case, <br />it was an oversight, they sent in a check that wasn't signed, and then they sent in a check that <br />was signed, however, wasn't negotiable. I think these are two distinct cases that I would not <br />give them the same fine. I don't want to enter into other issues with this restaurant but unlike <br />Longs Drugs in Waimea that I think is a good corporate citizen, this restaurant is not, so I would <br />not give them the benefit of the doubt on anything. That's my personal feeling as a resident of <br />Waimea. Does the Board have any thoughts on this? <br />Mukai: I have a procedural question. Did we hear from Counsel on the recommendation of the <br />fine? <br />Smith: one hundred fifty. <br />Mukai: oh, and did we vote on it? <br />Smith: No. We're considering it. <br />Gonzalez: There's no motion made yet. <br />Mukai: Should we approve and then discuss the fine? <br />Masuda: At this point, no. Since there's only three of you, somebody should make a motion <br />as to what they believe an appropriate fine amount should be and then have discussion among <br />yourselves. <br />FEBRUARY 21, 2019 - LIQUOR ADJUDICA TION BOARD MINUTES 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.