Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alcohol Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverton adopts liquor-license point system after council narrows violations list
Summary
After extensive debate and amendments, the council adopted Ordinance 25-009 establishing a 12‑month points-and-penalties system tied to convicted liquor-license violations; major infractions carry higher point values, and a hearing examiner process was formalized.
The Riverton City Council adopted on third reading an amended Ordinance 25-009 establishing a points-and-penalties regime for liquor-license violations. The ordinance assigns point values to convicted violations occurring within a rolling 12‑month window and ties escalating penalties — fines and short suspensions — to cumulative point thresholds.
Under the ordinance as adopted, staff will notify license holders after court convictions and may attribute points; licensees can request a hearing before an independent hearing examiner appointed by the city administrator. If the hearing examiner upholds assessed points, the licensee may be required to pay hearing costs up to $250 and face the penalty associated with the applicable point threshold. Licensees retain the right to appeal the examiner’s ruling to the council.
Councilmember Mike Bailey led a package of amendments that narrowed which statutory violations will carry point values and adjusted point thresholds (e.g., scaled thresholds of 20/40/60/80 points corresponding to graduated fines or suspensions; two suspensions within 12 months can trigger a gross-violation referral). Several council members emphasized that the table tracks serious public-safety and statutory violations (selling to minors, serving intoxicated patrons, operating outside permitted hours) while allowing staff to administratively note lesser violations without assigning suspension-triggering points.
Supporters said the change would provide quantifiable data for renewal decisions and clearer guidance for enforcement; critics cautioned that enforcement capacity must match the new obligations for the system to be effective. The ordinance passed after roll-call vote on third reading.
