2018-10-18 Liquor Adjudication Board Minutes

Home

Takase: No, I think they're both retail general licenses. It's just that their focus is (alcohol sales). We don't have too many actual liquor store left anymore. There's Kamuela Liquor, Kadota's Liquor, Kona Wine Market on the west side. Fuke: Kadota's and Kamuela Liquor would have the same license as Holo Holo Market? Takase: Yes. Even KTA-they are all just retail general. A lot of our convenience stores have the same license, but they probably have a lot more non -alcohol sales, and they have consequently a lot more traffic in their store with people buying other things. One of the big issues with all the stores is to combat under -aged sales. The other places have a lot more of it just because they have a lot more traffic and a lot more under -aged people in the store. If kids walk into Kamuela Liquor Store, they'll (be noticed). Maybe they'll have sodas or something, but they probably won't be their primary customers. Mukai: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make the motion that per the recommendation of the Corporation Counsel, to accept a fine of $1,000, $250 penalty now and $750 suspended. I'll explain further the rationale for my motion. Giffin: I second. Mr. Mukai moved that the Licensee in Case No. 2018-004, be assessed a penalty in the amount of $1,000 with $750 suspended for one year from the date of service of the Decision and Order on the condition that there are no similar violations to Rule 5-2, and that $250 is to be paid within thirty (30) days upon receipt of the written Decision and Order; seconded by Ms. Giffin. Fuke: There's a motion and and a second. Can we have a discussion on the penalty? Mukai: Mr. Chair, let me explain the rationale for my motion. True, being a liquor store and liquor sales are higher than say a Holo Holo Pantry. There were liquor sales that day. To me, a more severe violation would be to have someone on the premises that's not a card carrier (holder). I've noticed in the past that the fines for establishments that for whatever reasons did not have a card carrying personnel on the premises at the time of the inspection, assuming they had decent rationale as to the reason, I think those cases are more severe than someone like Wakayama where the person was a card carrying person. He or she knows how to handle sales of liquor, but due to clerical or managerial oversight, her card wasn't renewed. Not having someone with a card on premises is a more severe violation. In the past, the fine for that violation was $1,000, $500 up front, $500 suspended. From where I sit here, I believe this is a less severe violation than if someone did not have a card carrying person on the premises. Fuke: Is there any further discussion? Giffin: Just for clarification, Mr. Chair, the maker of the motion is suggesting that we accept what Corporation Counsel... Fuke: The motion, which is seconded, is $1,000 fine with $750 suspended. That's the motion, which is what the Counsel is recommending. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 14