April 2, 2023 — Beverage Licensing Authority Special Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Okay, recording started. Great call to order the special hearing of the beverages. Licensing authority for Wednesday, April third, 2,024, at 2 Pm. Thank you so much. We will start with our enrolls of decorum and give me just a second. I'm just closed off state. Sorry it's loading. Okay, here we go.

[1:01] Okay. the city who's engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and boarding commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the projects community engagement process can be found on our website. The following are examples of rules of decorum on the boulder Revised code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony should be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall, like threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. I've seen any racial epithets and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. participants are required to sign up to speak, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted. Online. There is a QA function for this meeting that is mostly for

[2:03] technical difficulties. Please don't put any sort of public comment in that and next we will move on to roll call. If you'll just speak your preference aloud. Member Mike Absalom. Member Absalom Present. Member, Michael Carr. Member car, present. Chair, Mack, Alzheimer. Chair Caliphano present. Member Leah Roberts. Member Roberts, present. Speak to you. And we have one item on this agenda today, and that is item number or agenda. Item number one showcase hearing concerning a lunch violations, whether the hotel restaurant type, liquor license held by Thirteenth Street, the Hill, Elc. Dba, Taco, Junky 1 1 4 9 Thirteenth Street, older Colorado, 80302 should be suspended for revoke. If you are here to speak on the center, please go ahead and raise your hand, and I will let you into the meeting.

[3:12] and while everyone is getting let into the meeting, I'll just let the Board know that this Licensee is not approved by sales, tax, or occupation tax at this time. and I think great. It looks like everyone is who have their hand raises in the meeting. and I believe we have some attorneys here, so if you are an attorney that's going to be appearing for this matter, can you please record your appearance for me? Good afternoon. Board. Christopher Reynolds, deputy city attorney for the City of Boulder License number 4, 2, 2, 8, 2. Good afternoon. My name is Christopher Carr. Registration 3, 2, 2, 3, 9. I'm appearing on behalf of one of the owners of the

[4:06] licensee. Angela Curvello. This is Jason Savilla, 2, 7, 8, 4, 3, and I'm representing Mr. Carabella, one of the owners. Thank you. and I will get anyone who's going to be giving testimonies worn in first, and then I'll hand it over to the chair. If you're going to be giving testimony, or think you might be giving testimony, and your attorneys can confirm tonight. Go ahead and let me know, and I'll get a report in. I'm I'm I apologize for interrupting. perhaps before we do. Swearing in of of any potential witnesses the matter of a potential stipulation per should be is before the board.

[5:02] and so it would be. I believe, most appropriate for the the matter of the stipulation to be discussed, and then we would submit it. And I believe Miss Teg has that, and can submit it to the Board members. for for review and then potential acceptance of of the stipulation, and that will determine whether or not anyone needs to be sworn in. you know, who needs to be sworn in, if any anyone at all. Certainly. We can go ahead and do that. Caitlin actually has that step ready to distribute out to the bla members. share what? One moment, please. Chair colifano once that's sent out. You would be able to take a brief recess to review apologies. Mr. Sabella.

[6:00] I'm sorry, and I interrupted you. I apologize. I guess what I'd like to say is that Taco junkie and and the other business is associated. would be willing to voluntarily surrender their license. If that is an option. If that's not an option, then the stipulation is something that that we're willing to go with. And there's a signature. And further, but we wanted to make sure that the board knew that we're essentially trying to voluntarily surrender either directly in that fashion or through the stipulation. Thank you. Caitlin. Let me know when you've gone ahead and emailed that out. Okay. There has been September. Just waiting for it. I see we have a hand raised from City attorney over Meres.

[7:03] Yes, thank you. So before the stipulation is considered. I do. I would like the Board to note that it has only been executed by one attorney. and so, before you even consider it, I would like to clarify. because it does appear that there are 2 counselor. There are 2 members of the business and ensure that that is representative of both both parties. It. It is we we weren't given a copy to sign, but Mr. Savilla did share the stipulation with me. I did agree to it. Signing it on behalf of the company, since I I guess in theory the company is the one that is signing it. Not not either, individual owner. But we are in agreement as well that we would prefer to voluntarily surrender the license, if possible.

[8:03] Alright. Thank you. Alright, so it's been received. Do we want to take a 5 min recess? What do the Board members think about that? Alright? So let's convene at. We'll say 6 min, 2 15 pm. Just waiting on one more member. Alright. hearing his back adjour open. Is there any motion from the Board to accept

[9:01] the stipulation. And Brokar will make a motion to accept the stipulation agreement. Remember, absolute, second. All in favor. Say, I remember California, I. Number, Absalom. I. Member car. I. Member Roberts, Hi. Okay. So, Caitlin. are we able to get some people sworn in if necessary? I'm going to go ahead and turn to the attorneys on this, so they can kind of give us a guide on what next step would be and just for the record that motion to accept the stipulation was did pass. So I don't know that we need to take any testimony or anything like that. But I'll let Roberto try to.

[10:00] Thank you. You. Certainly. It's gonna depend. As to whether you want to take testimony, and that will depend on whether you accept or how you wanna proceed counsel for the for the licensee indicated that the business would surrender the license. So for for point of clarification for the bla, and you can decide how you wish to proceed. Nothing prevents the licensing from surrendering the license. However, the bla can still mo move forward to consider revocation. According to your licensing staff, there is a difference between a license being revoked and a license being surrendered as I understand it, and and Chris and T. Could correct me. A surrendered license has no future consequences. A revocation, however, would be a factor in granting a future license in the State of Colorado.

[11:14] Kristen anything you wanted to add. No that is correct. A surrender. Anyone can surrender a liquor license at any time for any reason. As long as they're not attempting to avoid prosecution. Since there was a step already submitted for this. I do not believe that. you know. They they did step to revoke. A revocation. They would have to report in the future should they decide to try and apply for another liquor license. It's not an a reason for a denial of a license per se. It's just a factor that is taken into consideration for any future liquor licenses submitted within the State of Colorado. Thank you. So what does the Board think? The closest case I can think to this. Was we still.

[12:01] Asked the applicants about the charges we determined, you know, if or what they were, and their punishment, and then instead, not their punishment there suspension. And what we did was, rather than give a suspension is, we accepted their surrendering of the license as their violation. So that is correct. We have done that on occasion. And then there's also been straight revocation by the board in the past. So reading through the stipulation agreement. What I noticed is that it? It already states that the license has been agreed to be revoked by the city of Boulder. So do. isn't that? Is that answer? Isn't that already kind of? Answered. That's my understanding. It's that it's already.

[13:00] Would, nothing would prevent you from not accepting that portion of the stipulation? So a lot of times when you see a stipulation, you see a stipulation as to the facts, and then you decide the punishment here or not, the punishment penalty here that has been agreed upon. And you can certainly move if you wish not to accept that portion of it. If the Board votes and a majority agrees to accept the surrender of the license versus the Revocation completely up to the board. but that would require another motion. How's the rest of the Board feel about any decision on this. I mean, based on the providers the facts that we're looking at. I'm saying I would make a motion for revocation of the license. Hi, so. Second motion for revocation of the license.

[14:03] That was Member Epsilon make an emotion of revocation, of license. Is there any discussion on this. It's pretty clear to me. That's why I made the motion, so I don't know if anyone else wants to share. I agree. It's the stipulation. There's a ton of evidence. I think there was some reckless behavior. I think this would prevent future reckless behavior. and it is what was agreed upon. I would see I would agree with that as well. Just in the fact that, you know we they were notified. They had 2 weeks there was no mitigating factors put together whatsoever. yeah. Mr. Reynolds, did you have something you wanted to add. Thank you very much. So this this city was prepared for a full contested hearing today. And I do wanna just thank attorney a car and Attorney Savila for their communication. This is a pretty quick turnaround

[15:04] it would be the city's position that we would like to present, just a little bit, a little bit of evidence in aggravation on this case, a very small amount. We have one exhibit that has been submitted. It's been shared with the attorneys. It's a body worn camera from officer boulder police officers. Responding to talk with Junkie and I'd like that opportunity, but it's up to the board whether or not to grant that I don't believe it would take very much time. It would be much less evidence presentation than I was prepared to do today. But that's that is what I would like to ask the board but I do see that mr. Savilla has his hand up as well. Mr. Savilla. Thank you. Well, the I I do notice that the notice of the hearing and etc, was sent out. Believe it was Friday before last. We did not receive an actual copy of it until Monday. We knew something was going on. That's not the issue. But we didn't. We weren't able to review this, and

[16:13] we didn't prepare mitigation because we were looking at the stipulation and and surrendering the license. Anyway? the so we're not ready to present mitigation. And basically, if there's going to be aggravation presented against us, then we would like the opportunity to present mitigation. So we would ask for a continuance so that we could do such. Mr. Reynolds and I worked on this for last couple of days we're we're trying to one. Avoid a lengthy hearing that is not necessary, and and 2 to resolve this case with our clients learning what we're supposed to learn. essentially, privately.

[17:01] We're. I was hoping to save the board some time so we would like to go forward with this today if we could. But if if we're going to have some kind of an aggravated hearing, then we're gonna want to present mitigation. Thank you. Well, thank you for that explanation, Mr. Savilla. However, given the severity of these charges. We were hoping for something, for this was taken a little more seriously, and that we would have some mitigating factors from your clients. However, that did not happen. What how does the Board feel about Mr. Reynolds presenting some of this evidence. This is Member Apple. I don't have any problem with that. I'm just if there is a motion on already from the board to go and revoke the licenses there. I would ask Mr. Reynolds, the reason behind presenting this evidence just for the record is that the purpose. Se essentially. Yes, as it being a public hearing in this.

[18:05] I think the the community has an interest in a full airing of the facts, and while it is not my intention to present the same case, I would, in a contested hearing. you know, a picture is worth a thousand words, and I do have a 2 and a 2 and a half minute video clip. That Officer Spinney, from the Boulder police department is here, and can speak on a little bit, and so I don't believe it would take up much time to to present this, but, as I said, I think sometimes, you know, when you read something on a affidavit, or in a stipulation of fact. Fax, it kind of people take it one way, but then, if you actually see something with your eyes and kind of experience, perhaps what it looked like in the moment it it it further demonstrates, you know, to the community. you know the potential. You know what was actually happening here in a different way. And so that that would be the purpose of it.

[19:01] Member, California would be okay with that. I think, for documentation and court record purposes. We should see it as a community member. If I wasn't on the board I would be interested, and I think it's only fair that there is a record. Well, just to be clear as a presented exhibit isn't always going to be. It's gonna be presented on the agenda. Correct for public record. If licensing, that's the truth. Yeah. Yes. Currently oh, sorry. Caitlin, go ahead. This was sent to you in an email earlier, and it is currently available to the public right now. No, I've reviewed the I've reviewed the footage. I'm just saying, just for for referencing sake, that it's there. But I will agree with Member Roberts. As a member of the community. I am I will second Member California's motion to go ahead and review the exhibit. Don't think we'd need a motion for that, really. But

[20:02] member Card Roberts, you agree. I agree we should, we should. Alright, Mr. Reynolds, if you may. Mr. Colifuno, attorney Carr has had his hand. Oh, apologies Mr. Carr. No problem. I just didn't wanna interrupt. I I would object to the to the video, a, obviously with the stipulation as well as with the current motion that the authority has has granted, which is to revoke, or at least is is pending to revoke the license there. There's no reason in, in, in no logical reason for any aggravation to be provided because you can't get a more aggravated result to this case than revocation of the license. We can't revoke it twice. We can't do anything like that. So I I think it's unnecessary. I don't think it's needed, especially when the facts that the the authority can consider for penalty purposes has been stipulated to in the stipulation. And we haven't stipulated to Fax outside of that. So I I would object to the video being played. I I think everybody's seen. I think everybody knows what's in it, anyway, but I don't think it's necessary and would object to it happening here today.

[21:18] Mr. Savella. We would join that objection, and when I read through the the packet that was sent to us that we got on Monday. it indicated that a stipulation can be presented by the the prosecutor and the parties. And the board can either accept it or reject it. If it rejects it. Then a hearing can happen. It it so it seems to me that by the rule you have to accept it and accept it as is or reject it. and then we have the full hearing

[22:02] which I don't think anybody wants. Now I'm not. I'm just trying to say that's what I thought, the rule, said. Roberto. can you clarify what you meant when you had said that we can accept the stipulation without that 1 point. Yes, and that was based on the request from Council to accept the surrendering of the license, because normally, in these types of hearings. We only receive stipulations as to the facts, not necessarily as to the penalty. With regards to the matters in aggravation. I I tend to agree with Mr. Carr in that you can't revoke a license twice. I if it's already been provided to the members of the bla.

[23:02] I'm not sure that it would be for purposes of aggravation, however, as opposed to a mere presentation. But again, I I don't know what the purpose of that would be for the bla. Certainly you can decide that. Hearing Mr. Carr and Mr. Savellos. Objection, I. And after speaking with Mr. Ramirez, I do kind of agree now that we've seen this evidence. It is public. We have been presented it already, so I'm not sure, seeing it again at this point would really be beneficial. How does the other Board members feel. I tend to agree with that. I think those were valid statements. Yeah, I think it's in the public record. So anyone from from public can view that video if they're interested, and Mr. Carr makes a a good point that you know we can't remove the license twice, so

[24:11] I'm not sure I see the purpose. Yeah, I'll just reiterate what I said. Public records there. I agree. It would sustain the objection from Mr. Carr and Mr. Savilla. At this point we would go back to our original motion of revoking the license. Any more discussion? Or do we want to vote on it? Not seeing any Mike. No, I was willing to make the motion. If we're we need to do that again. I think we have a motion in a second at first, in a second. So we're good for there. At this point Member Califa would vote. Yes, for the relocation. In the instance that what's to say? This Licensee not going somewhere else and doing the same behavior? It was pretty substantial and severe for what they were doing.

[25:08] and I could just see them moving to a new location and doing the same thing. So Member California votes. Aye. all in favor. Vote. Aye. Number absolute. I. Member Carr. Aye. Member Roberts. Aye. Alright. So we had passed the revocation of this liver license. Thank you. I don't know that there's any other action or betters that need to be taken. But again, as any of the attorneys, or someone else wants to chime in on that. Go ahead.

[26:03] Nothing further from us. Thank you very much for your time today. Staff would make the note about the outstanding tax obligations. and then the process to wrap up matters at the license location as it pertains to alcohol stock on premises. That that would be officer wrecked, correct. And staff, here, Yeah, are there any questions either from staff or from officer rec to the licensees as to or the licensee as to what is currently in stock. Apologies. Deputy Attorney Ramirez, would you state that again for me.

[27:03] Sure as as I understand the process from a licensing perspective. the open alcohol must be destroyed in some manner. There must be some sort of stock being taken, and there has to be some sort of disposition, and I didn't know if if either licensing or officer rec had a question for the licensee as to what is remaining, or how that process will occur. Certainly I can speak to that. And then, officer rec. With prior matters with other licenses. On this the process has been, for the alcohol that is open, and not to be returned has to be when missed is being destroyed immediately. There has to be an inventory of alcohol that could be returned to the suppliers for credit to the business. and then we receive confirmation of that those returns within 5 days.

[28:05] I have done those in the past. I would ask that some of these I had to do during the pandemic, so it was done virtually, but most of them had been done in person with both license staff and the alcohol Enforcement officer. because alcohol is no longer allowed on the premises. It can't be taken home. It can't be given away. It can't be you know. consumed as a last straw. Anything like that. So I would recommend that, you know, we make arrangements to do that as quickly as possible. and then, of course, there are the tax obligations that would need to be taken care of, but that's administrative through the city officer. Wreck! You have anything. I just wonder do we need to arrange a time? I mean, I'd like.

[29:00] as they said, as it was stated sooner than later. So how do we go about arranging that appointment to meet up there to witness that. attorneys, Savala, and car I am. I don't know what Officer Rex availability is. I am available this afternoon. My clients not involved in the day to day operations of the the facility. So I'll let Mr. Savilla speak to that with his client. I think they're the ones that you're gonna want to coordinate with. As to timing. okay. And if if we could do something tomorrow, but certainly if I can get your phone number, then we'll work to arrange that, or we can. Also, I have your email. I believe, so we can work that way. But I think sometime tomorrow. Officer wreck. Would that be acceptable to you? I can make myself available. Okay? we will coordinate via email, attorney car. Would you like to be included in that email thread?

[30:08] Sure, if it's an email, that's fine. I again, I don't. I don't plan on being present. I don't think it's necessary for all of us to be, but it'd be helpful, just so that my client knows what's happening when that'd be helpful. Okay? Yeah, we can go ahead and coordinate that for as soon as possible tomorrow. With the assurance that that no alcohol leaves the premises today or is consumed. Additionally, we will send information regarding tax obligations and the deadline for that is that okay, attorneys at all. I was. Yes, that is okay.

[31:01] Okay. there will be additional documentation coming. For the verification in addition. in the next day or 2. It's it's just the formal from the city. Great Caitlin. Is there anything else we need to do at this point? Then. I don't believe so. Alright Member California would make a motion to adjourn. Remember, Absalom would second. All in favor. Say, aye, member, telephone, am I. Number Epsilon, I. Overcard. Aye. Mir. Roberts, I. We are adjourned at 2, 38 PM.

[32:00] Thank you for your time. Thank you. And Gail.