Riverton council adopts point-based penalties for liquor-license violations
Loading...
Summary
On Dec. 16 the Riverton City Council approved an amended ordinance creating a point schedule to quantify penalties for liquor-license violations, adding a hearing-examiner process and capping the non‑prevailing party's share of hearing costs at $250. The measure passed on second reading; one final reading remains.
Riverton — The City Council on Dec. 16 adopted, on second reading, an ordinance that creates a point-based system to assess penalties against liquor-license holders after a court conviction.
City attorney/administrator Mr. Butterfield told the council the proposal is intended to make enforcement “consistent, fair, and transparent” and to remove arbitrariness from how penalties have been applied under the current municipal code. The ordinance sets a points schedule tied to specified violations and attaches fines and suspensions at defined thresholds (for example, 25 points in a 12‑month period carries a $250 fine; 75 points can trigger a suspension of up to three days, 100 points up to five days). Butterfield described a process that gives licensees notice and an opportunity for a hearing before an independent hearing examiner and preserves an appeal to the governing body.
Council debate focused on several elements: which violations should carry points, how points will be tracked, whether convictions filed in circuit court would be reported to the city, and how to structure and pay for the hearing-examiner process. The council amended the ordinance language to change an early phrasing from balancing interests “against” licensees to balancing the interests of residents, visitors and license holders; members said that change clarified intent and avoided an adversarial tone.
Business owners and other members of the public pressed the council on the cost and qualifications for hearing examiners. Rafael Delgadillo, who identified himself as a local licensee, warned that a retail liquor license is a valuable asset and said the city should appoint a hearing officer who “understands the law, has litigated before, and knows that they have a very, good legally tight case,” adding that high hearing costs could discourage licensees from contesting findings. Anna Peterson, who identified herself as the owner of Ralph’s Bar, described a violent incident at her business and said long police response times complicate any requirement to contact law enforcement each time a patron is ejected.
In response, council members and staff offered several mitigations. Administrative Services Director Mia Harris said points would not be assessed until after a conviction and that the clerk’s office would work with municipal court and the police department to develop a tracking system. The council added an amendment governing hearing costs: the non‑prevailing party would be responsible for a maximum of $250 toward the hearing cost, with the city covering amounts above that limit in typical cases. The ordinance as adopted retains licensees’ ability to seek a hearing examiner and to appeal findings to the council.
Supporters on the council said the ordinance does not create new criminal offenses but instead quantifies penalties already available in law so problems can be identified and corrected earlier in the year rather than waiting until renewal time. Opponents cautioned against creating an enforcement regime that could be perceived as revenue-generating if routine compliance checks became frequent.
The council passed the ordinance on second reading as amended; members stated there will be a subsequent reading before the ordinance becomes final.
