September 18, 2024 — Beverage Licensing Authority Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:04] Alright call to order the beverage. Licensing authority. Hearing for Wednesday, September 18, th 2,024. Thank you so much. We will start with instructions for virtual hearing and rules of decorum. I'm gonna share my screen. all right. The city has 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 board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found on our websites.

[1:00] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision these will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, 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 for public comment. The chat function should be used for technical questions to staff, and it should not be used for public comments, and you'll see that as a. QA. If you have technical questions. all right. Moving on to the I will do roll. Call here, if you'll just speak your presence aloud. Chair, Califano. Chair califano present.

[2:02] You remember Absalom. Member Absalom Present. Thank you. Vice chair. Carr. Vice chair, Carr, present. Thank you. Member Haggerty. Never had to be present. And Member Roberts. Member Roberts, present. Thank you so much. And we do have a quorum today. Give me just one second. all right, and next we move on to approval of beverage licensing authority. Minutes from August 21, st 2,024. Did any of the members have any edits to these minutes? Member Califano did not. Member absolutely get a motion to approve the minutes. Member. Carr would second that motion. All in favor. Say, I remember, you know I. Member absent, I. Member car? Aye. Member Haggerty. I.

[3:00] Roberts. Aye. Thank you so much. Next we have hearing agenda issues from the licensing clerk. I have just a few things to go over for you. City staff. Request that yuri hana be heard as agenda. Item 6 or well before agenda. Item 6. They have requested an interpreter, and that interpreter is here. Until 5 pm. So we're hoping that they could go 1st of the show causes so that we can get them done before the interpreters. Time is up. and then the other agenda item that we had was that lab bar and bytes does not have assigned stipulation. So we were wondering if the bla would prefer to hear them last. Since that might take the most amount of time for the show causes either after Chiba hut, the application hearing or before Chiba hut. But after all the rest of the show causes, or if you want to hear them at the same spot in the agenda. That's fine, too.

[4:11] I'm fine with moving the 1st request. To be the 1st agenda. Item, the rest of the board. Good! With that, too. Yes. Yes. And then how do we feel about the lab. I think it's appropriate to move it just to be courteous, courteous of everyone's time. Yeah. I would say we move it till right after Chiba hut, to the approval. After the approval. All right. We can move that. Thank you so much. and that is it, for agenda issues for this term. I will move on to agenda. Item, 2 matters from boulder, police department and Officer Rack is here.

[5:01] Good afternoon. Not a ton to report. The fake ids are still rolling in. We're up to about 1,200, and continuing with inspections and compliance checks. Awesome. Are there any questions for Officer wreck? Not seeing any alright? Well, thank you so much, Officer Rick. Thank you. Next we move on to agenda. Item, 3 matters from responsible association of retailers, and Nathan Dewey is here. Hey, everybody! It's been a couple of months, as I think you all knew. Last month I was in Poland, so not able to make the meeting not a lot of report as well, which is, I think, a good thing. We've gotten some new members. One of them will appear today. Just so. You guys know the

[6:00] bit and bytes, I know I'm getting the title wrong. Sorry bar bit, bar and bit sorry lab bar and bytes has joined Re. R. In the past month. And we're going to be moving forward with the partnership with them. So that's really exciting. One great thing is that we finally found a student resource and another resource to get those id compliance checks out there again in the community. I've been training a couple of people. So, as you all know, since 2020, it's just been a struggle. I don't know why it just has, but we did find a good group of kids who want to do this. So that's gonna be great, and I will reach out to officer Rec as well the past couple of months. I didn't, because it's my fault due to vacation and things like that, but I will be reaching out to her so we can have more of a united front on these fake id issues and have a little communication going there between us. And probably the biggest news is, as you know we've had terrible trouble with tips the past year or so. We are now surfsafe certified to instruct with surfsafe alcohol and

[7:10] and I'm not trying to do this to throw tips under the bus anymore than I already have. But, I really, after taking the training myself and taking the instructors training. I'm really excited about this training. It's far more up to date. They've got brand new material. They've got things that the 12 or 13 year old tips training which has not been changed. They came out with a new manual and everything. But nothing's changed. Besides some some language within the actual text. I'm pretty excited to be serving or training that we're also going to be working with Abt training services, getting some training on that. So by the end of probably this month or beginning of October, we're going to be able to offer 3 different types of trainees. We still will offer tips training to those who really want it. But it is the most expensive now, because they did raise the prices by like 210%.

[8:07] So you know, I just feel good. We're finally out of the woods on that one. Mandy and myself are trained in case I can't make it, she can make it and so, yeah, I'm just really excited. Also, the turnaround from Servsafe is like almost next day on results. So no more of this. Oh, I'm sorry I have to contact tips and be on tips for weeks and weeks at a time. I do have confirmation that tips did lose some of our training sessions. One was within boulder, but we did copy that and photocopy it. So we are getting those finally taken care of. as I found someone competent enough at tips to take care of that other than that things are looking great for this fall. I'm out there boosting membership as much as I can, so I'll be in Boulder a lot this next month just trying to recruit more members as

[9:00] just as there's a lot of new places out there, actually. And we'd like to get them on board with us. So that's all I have for today, unless you all have any questions. Great. Thank you there. Any questions for Mr. Dewey from the board not seeing any. All right. Well, thank you again, Mr. Dewey. Yeah, have a great one. Thank you. Next, I have general public comments for future beverage, licensing authority hearings. If you're here to give comment on something that is not included on the agenda. Please go ahead and raise your hand once again. If you're here to give comment, public comment on something that is not on the agenda. Go ahead and raise your hand. I'm seeing no hands. so I'll move on. Agenda. Item 5 is Pinko Corporation, Dba chicken on the Hill 1 1 1 9 13th Street, Boulder, Colorado, 8 0. 3 0, 2 monthly status reports to the Bla.

[10:04] and I see the licensee is here. I will let them in. and while they're being promoted to panelists, I'll just let the Vla. Know that they are in good standing with occupation tax and sales tax. and Mr. Lewis 8. Great. Are there any questions from the board, for Mr. Lu doesn't look like it. Awesome, Mr. Lee. Well, glad to see you're still in good standing, and keep it up. Thank you guys. Y'all take care. Thank you. We're gonna move on and we're gonna be hearing agenda. Item 7. We're just skipping number 6, and we'll come back after agenda. Item 7 is show cause hearing concerning an alleged violation, and whether the hotel restaurant type, liquor license held by Zfauna, Inc Dbi yurihana, 6 5, 2, 5 gun park drive, suite 3, 3, 0 boulder, Colorado, 8 0, 3 0, 1 should be suspended or revoked.

[11:10] If you are here to speak on this matter. Go ahead and raise your hand, and I'm going to promote that. There's an interpreter for this matter, and I'm gonna go ahead and promote them, and then they might need to translate that whoever is here to raise their hand. Hello! Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah, right? There. Are you? Need to turn our video. Yes, please. And Howard, if you don't mind, I'm gonna go ahead and swear you in, and then I'll have you begin interpreting. If that's okay.

[12:03] So we're gonna do this consecutively, right? Yes. Okay. Okay. If you'll raise your hand. Thank you. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will make an accurate, complete, and impartial interpretation from the English language into mandarin, and vice versa, of all communications during the proceedings, using your best skilled judgment and ability. I do? Thank you. Perfect. And So? Who am I interpreting for. Well, they haven't raised their hand yet, so I'm assuming that they'll need an interpreter to let them know that they need to raise their hand to be let into the hearing, so they can begin speaking. Okay. So. If you're here to appear for this matter for Yuri. Hana, please go ahead and raise your hand.

[13:03] And, Howard, would you be able to interpret that part for just not seeing any hands raised yet. It's in the mirror, and she shall one share 5.

[14:03] Here we go. Go. Okay, and I see someone has raised their hand, and I'm promoting you to panelists. If you'll accept that. thank you. And if you all turn your camera on and unmute yourself. Okay. yeah, how? Thank you so much. She's here.

[15:02] Attorneys. Did you want to present the stipulation first, st and then I can swear in the licensee. Thank you. My name is Dashauna Sasweta, and I am here today on behalf of the city of Boulder City attorney's office to prosecute today's show causes. We received a signed stipulation from Yurihana, and would like to submit that to the board. At this time.

[16:11] Great. Thank you. Is there motion from the board to accept the stipulation effects. Voice. The money you pay. Member. Carr will make a motion to accept the stipulation effects. Member. Absalom will second. Great, we found all in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye.

[17:01] Member RI. A car, short t-show. And raggerty eye. IT assure. Member Roberts. Aye. Robert's here! Sure it's here, sure. Thank you. I will ask our licensee if they can state their name and spell their name. Either. since I tried to assume you. since I can't listen. My name is Xian Lianghua. and would you. Can you spell that for me. It means there's a machine. Yeah. His. His last last name is Sam XIAN

[18:03] listen, m, said LIAN HUA. Thank you. And can you, give an address for the record. 1, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 2 handsomely Jordan Tim. but a lot of Aeo. 6 0, 1, 6 0, 2. Thank you, and if you will raise your right hand. CC, also. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give. And you're known for being children. In the matter before the beverage. Licensing authority is true.

[19:08] Screw up! No. Yes. Thank you. Tisha. And I will hand it back to the chair. So, since you're not represented by council. I'm going to go ahead and read the proceedings into the record. Okay. Okay, this is a public hearing before the beverage licensing authority of the city of Boulder. I think he should say.

[20:11] To determine whether or not the license of Xian fa doing business as Yuri Hana with a hotel type, restaurant liquor license shall be suspended or revoked on the basis of the violations

[21:03] alleged in the order to show cause, served upon the licensee. Meaning. And requiring the licensee's presence here today. Because this is a disciplinary proceeding. the authorities shall not ask for or allow comment from members of the general public on the guilt of the licensee, or the appropriate discipline to be imposed.

[22:08] The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony presented by the city and the licensee. In order to enable this authority to make the findings and to determine. You're young. By a preponderance of the evidence. Whether or not the licensee has violated the various laws, as alleged.

[23:03] If, in the course of the hearing testimony or other evidence, establishes the guilt. Your wife and someone quitting that. Of the licensee of a violation of some law, rule, or regulation. Then those stated in the notice, the licensee shall be afforded with a reasonable continuance upon any offer, that evidence in defence, explanation, and mitigation.

[24:11] Church, out of her. Is not then available to the licensee. but can be obtained within the period of a continuance not to exceed 10 days. A record is being made of these proceedings. all testimony shall be given under oath. The rules of evidence and requirement of proof and procedure shall confirm to the extent practicable

[25:06] to those in civil non-jury cases, but when necessary to ascertain facts affecting the substantial rights of the public or the licensee. the authority may receive and consider evidence not admissible under such rules. If such evidence poses probative value, commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent persons in the conducts of their affairs.

[26:11] the rules of privilege required by law shall be respected in this proceeding. and the chair may or may exclude incompetent and unduly repetitious evidence. The Chair shall rule upon all questions of evidence and procedure.

[27:07] subject to being overruled on motion sustained by a majority vote of those members of the authority present. Should a licensee wish to request a fine in lieu of active suspension days. They should notify the authority of this after a penalty is determined, if any.

[28:04] but before suspension posting is discussed, and the licensee should be prepared to supply an estimated per day suspension dollar amount for the authorities. Deliberations? Are there any ex parte communications or conflict of interest from any of the Board members. D, or it's Italy that run through. Member Califano, now. California. Absolute, no.

[29:00] Member Carnell. Yeah, show me your. Margarito. Has the issue from you. Member Roberts, No. No, Roberts. Yeah, she'll show me. Oh. Okay, great. So this is a time for your client to explain how the violation happened. Present any mitigating factors? Just kind of let us know what happened. We're not totally fine.

[30:04] Hello! Hello! Anyhow. So are you asking me to relate to you what happened on that date? Yes, this is the time for them to let us know how this violation occurred. What happened if they have any mitigating factors to present to us. Target. The energy. Uma. 2. Yeah. People walked in and they ordered liquor.

[31:06] Yeah, as my way. My like a waiting staff was new, and they were here for just only a couple of days. Idea. That's a high meal. Yeah. I had already talked to them about how like they should check on the Id when selling liquor. But I had not had the time for them to just go to take the test to get the legal license.

[32:09] I think how visible thought of you. We also want to live because. So this person like checked on the Id, and since like they were new. and they were probably just like nervous when they were 1st serving these 2 people that walked in. but when they checked on the Id they did check the Id, but it was probably because of poor math. they were not able to figure out like whether this person was under the age of 21 or not.

[33:02] and they just continue to serve them like liquor. So they served a liquor, and then these people called the police in. So was this individual that served the liquor. Did they have any Colorado certified, serve safe training at all? Talk to another. Yeah, they just moved from California. So I guess my question is, why were they serving alcohol? If they didn't have that required training.

[34:35] To your colleague at home. Join digniture in the Yvon. That is something you can baner you. So you're not. Gonna you talk to them to the

[35:02] the Marathon. So yeah, this this person claimed that they were like or they they had served as a wait waiter in California before. and they they had experience like as a waiter. and also just happened on that day that another waiter in our restaurant like by name of. She was taking the day off. So I was trying to like, have this person on duty like for training, and so like. So we were going to ask this person to take the license test to get the license. But it just so happened just on that date. This person was like being a substitute for this shoe was taking that day off. It just happened that this this incident happened on that day.

[36:10] There any other questions from the Board? My question would be. are there plans to have this employee trained with surfsafe or tips. or any sort of responsible alcohol, serving, training. Tigun to. Yeah. I've already asked this person to take the test, and he's already like obtained the license.

[37:08] And thank you as as a follow up how you know. do they intend to prevent these type of issues from happening in the future, you know, even when they have new new employees. A male. Yeah. But if a new employee comes in, I will have to ask them to present their license before they can be offered a job.

[38:00] Thank you. Titian. There any other questions from the Board? To reach me, and she are a woman. Alright! If there's no other questions. Is there any anything else that you wanted to present. Mayor. No. So that so I see one. That's say, some time. We are fine. Considering, considering that the economy is pretty bad. Now, it's very difficult to do business.

[39:03] and I just like or plead with the the jury members not to impose like too heavy a fine against me. Alright. Thank you. At this point we will close for deliberation. Pardon. Okay. Is there a suggested motion? This is Member Absalom speaking. I. I do feel some concerns around training policies and several of the other issues around how things are being run at this establishment. I do understand concerns about the economy and people coming into an establishment and and changing a a location. I I understand, and get that.

[40:16] No. I would make a motion around the table value with the stipulation of proven training practices coming into place within a two-month period.

[41:07] Member Absalom? Do you have specifics for days served and days held in advance. I believe the table value that I'm looking at is 3 days served but 6 in advance, or maybe I'm looking at the wrong license. Sorry I might not be on the right table. Hold on. I'm having trouble finding the table. Can somebody tell me which page it's on. Leah. It's not in your packet, it's in like the original bla training materials. But do you want me to just send it to you? Oh, yes, please. Yes. Maybe I'm thinking of a different license type. Unfortunately, yeah. So the table values aren't in front of me. They generally are presented at the beginning of every show cost, hearing

[42:05] in our packets. Caitlin. Can you send that to everyone. I can. Yes. Thank you. Hey! I was gonna ask. In the meantime, if Caitlin, I don't know you wanna pull it up or share your screen. I also have it pulled up on my screen. If it's easier. I don't know if you want to do that. That would be great. I'm gonna make you a co-host, so you can do that. Bianca.

[43:03] They don't know. So, Member Absalom, I believe you were saying table values, so it would be. 5 days served. And then 9 days sale held in advance. Is that what you were thinking. Yeah, that's correct. I was looking at a different type of license. So, yes, that's the table value. Here is 5 days served with 10 in advance. With the caveat that we see further training in terms of not only the training for new hires and current employees, but also a comprehensive alcohol policy for this business. Within the next 60 days. To get detail

[44:07] right now. I have only one employee. Apologies we are. We are closed for deliberation at this point, so we won't be taking any more testimony. Chance. And Member Carr would second member. Absalom's motion. I guess I'm wondering what happens if we don't have a comprehensive if those stipulations aren't followed through. So do you need me to interpret this part of your deliberation or no?

[45:01] I would say yes, just so that your clients, aware. Oh, okay. I believe the answer to that was, we would see that as a violation of our stipulation, and we can add additional days of suspension. or a bank, or detailed in abeyance. So we have a motion, and a second all in favor. Say, aye, member Califano, aye.

[46:04] Member Absalom. I. Absalom 20. Never car. I. Hi, Tony, car, Tony. Member Haggerty. Aye. How could he, Tony? Member Roberts. Aye. Roberts told me. So what we've determined the suspension will be is 5 days that they will not be able to serve alcohol in their establishment with an additional 10 days being held in abeyance. They don't have to serve those 10 days if they do not get another violation within a year.

[47:02] If they do get a violation within a year, they will have to serve those 10 days, not being able to serve liquor in their establishment. In addition to any additional suspensions we may. In addition, we put a stipulation on that. They will need to present to us their training of alcohol service materials. probably at the next hearing next month.

[48:07] If we do not see that, or it is not adequate, we may add additional days to be served to their suspension. Now we need to determine days for these to begin being served. Is everyone okay with Monday? Money seems reasonable to me. Kristen does that work for your team?

[49:06] I'm not Kristen, but I get okay. There you go. I'm so sorry, Caitlin. I don't know what I was thinking. No, you're okay there. Yeah. Kristen can answer. Also, I was just gonna say, I'm not Kristen. But I can tell you that that's fine. So caitlin the attendee she could. Okay. So the consecutive days being served of no alcohol sales will begin this Monday. Your he will need to pick up a poster from the city's office that he will need to have posted in his establishment during these days being served, the restaurant can remain open and serve food, just not alcohol.

[50:15] So do I go go in the office on Monday to get it. Get the poster. I will prepare the posters tomorrow, and I will email pick up instructions tomorrow. You can pick them up anytime before Monday. Pardon. Okay. So starting from Monday I will be not be allowed to sell alcohol. Is that correct?

[51:05] Correct for 5 consecutive days. So that'll be Monday through Friday. Is that correct? Correct. There, sure. Alright! Okay. Thank you very much. She's in. Thank you. And Howard. We are. That was the only item that we needed an interpreter for. So thank you so much for your service. Okay, thank you. So the like, the Chinese speaker can also leave. Yes. okay.

[52:01] Huh! She also mentioned that I need to provide the training materials like employee training materials. Yes, you can email them to me. I will send you an email tomorrow with my email address. To your email, to your Caitlin. Pardon. Hold on! Okay. Yes, it's it. Thank you. Thank you. Alright, thank you all. Bye-bye on your Katie Kayla. Okay, say, bye, bye. Okay, give me a second to get everyone sorted here.

[53:06] Alright, everyone. Thank you. We will be moving on. To agenda. Item 6. Moving back to agenda. Item 6, which is show cause hearing concerned and alleged violation, and whether for the fermented malt beverage and wine retailer off premise, type. Liquor license held by April, Llc. Dba. Rocket (650) 533-7528th Street, boulder, Colorado, 8 0. 3 0. 1 should be suspended or revoked. If you are here to speak on this matter, please raise your hand, and I will let you in. and I do see that the licensee has entered, and then also their attorney, Mr. Coats. Good afternoon. As members of the board. The city has received a signed stipulation from Rocket Number 6, 5, 0 5, and we will submit that to the Board.

[54:15] Rate. Did you say you were going to send it to the board? Or but. Submitting it for discussion at this point in time. Gotcha. Thank you. Is there a motion to accept the stipulation effects? Member Califano would make a motion to accept. Number, absolute mole, second. All in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. Number, Absalom. I. Member Carr. Aye. Member Haggerty. I. Member Roberts. Aye.

[55:00] Thank you. And Mr. Coates, I think that your client might be having a difficult time, it says, connecting to audio. So I'm sure, at Miller. If you can hear us, go ahead and unmute yourself, but might be an issue. He indicates that Kevin colts on behalf of vapro here, registration or 2, 5, 9, 9, 5. He just texted me. He says my microphone is not working. I keep getting an error message. I'm trying to get into it. may I just suggest he call the number. That would be fine for the zoom purposes as long as the beverage licensing authority is okay with that. Yeah, that'd be fine.

[56:01] I am trying to find that number here as we speak, so I can text it to him. It came. Apologize here. It looks like if I understand what it is. 7, 1, 9, 3, 5. I'm sorry. 7, 1, 9, 3, 5, 9, 4, 5, 8, 0. Just texted him to call that number. Yes, (719) 359-4580. And I'll just keep an eye out. And that's actually a good thing members of the board. Can you see the stipulation on page 25, or is it showing blank? Is it showing like a black page when you're looking at it.

[57:01] It looks like there might have been an. I see a black page. Alright. I will send it to you in an email. I apologize. To confirm. This is for Aperro, Llc. Correct, it would be. Page 25 of your okay, your packet. It looks like it. I can see it. Did that. Yeah, I can see it, too. You can see it. Hi! Kenya! Mine's. Black. Okay? Well, I'll send it just in case you have a black one. and then we'll just wait for the licensee to come in on phone.

[58:12] He says he's trying to get in via texting me. Those those are the words says I need meeting Id. Does he need that by call in. The meeting. Id is oh. Is it the same? 1. 0, 1, 0, 4, 1, 6. Try that and see if that works. Our apologies for this very much. He's I just texted that pass code that was on your notice to him. No problem. That's the one I try and says does not exist.

[59:02] Okay. Looks like it. The meeting Id is. Hang on. Let me see it. Let's see if I can find it again. It is I'm sorry. It's gonna be kind of long. It's 8, 4, 5, 3, 7, 8, 7, 3, 8, 7, 3. Let me know if you need that, repeated. I'll I'll say that back if if it's right. That's okay. 84537873873. Nothing. 8, 4, 5, 3, 7, 8, 7,

[60:02] 3, 8, 7, 3. 8, 4, 5, 3, 7, 8, 7, 3, 8, 7, 3. Yes. Like I just hit. Send. All good. While he's doing that, you know. One other alternative is he's he said, one sec. Just now he's going to try to call and put that in is, I could call him on my cell phone and see if it translates through as well.

[61:03] Let's try to get him in the zoom, and if that that could be, maybe a last resort. Understand?

[62:09] May I confirm that number with you again? 84537873873. That's correct. And I see that there is someone on their phone. And I've asked the phone number to unmute. So hopefully, this is deep. Dave, can you hear us, and can you unmute? Are you able to unmute. 13039053806: There we go. Can you hear me now? Yes. 13039053806: There we go. Sorry you kept saying I was muted, so I'm good now. That's no problem.

[63:01] Thank you. Our apologies. We're we're here. 13039053806: Yeah, that mess. Okay, so I will just get back to where we were. okay, great Steve, I'm gonna go ahead and swear you in, Mr. Coates, do you believe anyone else will be testifying for this matter? I do not thank you. Okay, awesome. Steve will just trust that you're raising your right hand. And well, before that. Sorry. Will you say your name and spell your name for the record, and give your address. 13039053806: Yes, Steve 13039053806: at Miller. It's STEV. E. 13039053806: Last name is spelled a PZMI, LLER. 13039053806: And my address is 75, 0, 1 13039053806: South 13039053806: Black Canyon Road. 13039053806: in Littleton. 13039053806: Colorado. 13039053806: 8 0. 1, 2, 8. Thank you so much, and if you'll raise your right hand.

[64:00] do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the beverage. Licensing authority is true. 13039053806: I do? Thank you. and I'll hand it back over to the board. Roberta, did you have something. I do. Mr. Coats. My name is Roberto Ramirez. I am counsel for the Board for the authority as counsel for the licensee. Can you indeed verify, based on his voice that he is who he says he is. I can't. Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And Mr. Coates, can we get your attorney license number. Certainly it's 2, 5, 9, 9, 5. Great. Thank you. And since you're representing his counsel, I'd ask if you'd be willing to waive the reading of the proceedings into the record. Absolutely. And thank you. Great. Thank you. Is there any ex parte communication or conflict of interest from any of the Board members? Member Califano? Now.

[65:06] Remember Absalom, no. Member Carr, no. That raggarty note. Member Roberts, No. Excellent. All right, Mr. Coats, you may proceed. Thank you very much. Mr. Atsmiller. His name spelled a TZMI. LLER. The district manager with that road is also present. Apro does business as the rocket here that's subject to this. On violation, hearing the mitigation packet was submitted before the time frames for the last hearing, as we thought we were on the last time back in August. But obviously we're here today, and you should have copies of that packet in terms of what happened. We can't explain it. The the employee had been trained as articulated in the training materials that are part of that packet through tips. He'd been employed since approximately 2020.

[66:04] Never had any issues here. He didn't card the individual and entered a entered a date of birth, 1,999 date that. That didn't correspond to anything associated with the individual that was making the purchase so he failed to obviously follows policies and procedures that you see in that packet failed to follow the the policies and procedures as outlined by the company and training. But obviously it's our responsibility. He was our employee. He no longer works with the company because because of this. Interestingly enough, there's a bars program information within that packet which shows a hundred percent compliance. He was on that list. If you if you look closely he's on. he's a he passed it back in March for for a bars program, secret shoppers. compliance check but on this day he he didn't. He didn't follow what had been instructed. Since the timeframe of of that all the employees have been retrained internally. All of them are up to date, as it relates to the external trainer. The tips. Training is articulated in the report.

[67:13] And the the. As I said, the individuals is no longer with the company. But we can't explain why this happened other than to say that it did happen. And We're retraining all the other individuals and using this experience with those individual, with with this individual that's been let go as a reminder to them all the individuals that are still working there, and they have a kind of a a solid staff, not a lot, not a substantial amount of turnover at this store, fortunately used to go forward in terms of making sure they understand that you lose your job, and and I'm sure he was criminally prosecuted as well as outlined in in the policies and procedures that that'll occur.

[68:00] But I know that they are also taking the steps of of reviewing video, of of employees in terms of their sales to make sure that employees are, in fact, following their policies and procedures and carding individuals in addition to the secret shoppers. Review. And they have been also looking through the electronic journals to make sure that there isn't any bypass in the system in terms of entering a date of birth. That doesn't correspond to a proper id that's been given in other words, not the same date of birth over and over, or something to that effect, to make sure that that's not occurring. and the employees are being made well aware of that associate with that. Mister Mr. Alts, Miller is present here to answer any questions you might have. I? I know that the the table value on on this matter, I believe, is is 5 days with 9 days held in advance. I think we've touched on almost all. almost almost all of the

[69:01] align items that are submitted on the on the mitigation packet. Aggravating and mitigating factors. Guidelines. But because of that we're asking for obviously a lesser penalty. But I understand obviously, the Board's discretion to to meet out any penalty. 13039053806: Okay. And in terms of a fine loo. We we followed the procedures as outlined in your letter as outlined in the previous hearing explanation in terms of what to do. We did bring sales, figures present and have them today, if the Board is willing to entertain any find and loo opportunity here, but we have the daily average. Daily sales. Sales amounts. If if that is something that the Board is willing to consider. With that being said. I turn it over to to you folks to ask certainly questions that I can answer. And hopefully Mr. As Miller could answer. And again, we're we're here with hat in hand, because it's a failure in terms of the the company, particularly with respect to this individual, the the

[70:02] follow policies and proceed. Great. Thank you. Are there any questions from the Board? I guess my one quick clarification question is, was this policy in place at the time of the violation. Yeah. The which policy are you referring to? The mitigating factors that you submitted all that information. Yes. Well, the the policies and procedures are part of that packet were in place. Yes, at the time that the violation occurred. If that's your if that's your question. Great. Thank you. There. Any other questions from the board. Quick question. You you mentioned the a retraining took place after this violation. Is, is that correct? As well. Internal retraining. And and Mr. Ass Miller can talk about this. But you know, they have 2 types of training. Obviously, the internal computer based training as well as the external training of the tips. So the internal training was Redone. It's my understanding. Is that correct? Mr. At Smith?

[71:03] 13039053806: That's correct. All all employees have been retrained 13039053806: since the violation. Great any other questions. Alright, Mr. Coates, is there anything else you wanted to present. As I said it, I I would obviously reserve the right post closing to give you a number in terms of average daily sales, if that's something that you're going to consider. But beyond that no, we have we not? We have nothing else to submit and appreciate your time. Consideration. Great. Thank you. At this point we will close for deliberation. Does anybody have a motion.

[72:04] I think going with a table value makes sense. I'm not as interested in in lieu of is anybody. Personally, I remember telephone. I was not. I agree with Member Califano here. There is mitigation and training in place, and I agree that there is mitigation. But to to the point of finding lieu. I don't see that I I do agree with Member Roberts, and I would. If that is a motion, I would second a motion for the table value. Member, Roberts, can you confirm? That was a motion. Sure I would take, or I would make a motion to I I don't know the wording. 5 days served with 9 held in abeyance. Yes. I would make a motion to accept. 5 days served with 9 in advance.

[73:00] And member Absalam. You second, that. I do. I just want to confirm that that's the actual type of value for this type of license. Amber Carr. Does that look right. Looking at it. Yeah, I believe this is. Fermented malt beverage, license. Yeah, so that would be correct. So then I will. I can confirm a second to the table value of 5 days, served with 9 in advance. All in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. Number Epsilon, I. M. Car. I. Member Haggerty. Aye. Member Roberts. Aye. Alright days to be served is Monday. Okay with everyone. Alright. So we can start the suspension. This upcoming Monday.

[74:08] Thank you. And then, same thing. Steve, I will send an email. I'll also put Kevin on it so that he can make sure it gets the right people. On the pickup instructions for those posters. Can I ask a quick question about that Caitlin? The the you? You can pick those up. They come in a locker form, if I remember correctly, is that right? They're in a locker, and the signs are in the locker, and and you could pick them up through the weekend, in other words, that you you there isn't a it doesn't have to be up through Friday afternoon. Close a business it can be, even through the weekend that they can be picked up. That's correct. And they have to be up prior to 8 am. On Monday. Is that is that correct? I'm gonna double check for you. What times they go up. If anyone knows feel free to try me.

[75:04] I believe. I believe it's just during the suspension. So as long as it's up by Monday at 8 am. Yeah. 8 am perfect. Okay, well, thank you very, very much. I appreciate your folks time and and we'll look forward to that email and take care. Thank you. Thank you. Bye, bye. 13039053806: Thank you. Thank you. Okay, give me a second. I'll make sure everyone's where they're supposed to be. Okay. The next agenda item is the lab arm bites. But we previously discussed moving that to the end of the agenda. So we are going to skip ahead to agenda. Item 9, which is showcase, hearing, concern and alleged violation, and whether the hotel restaurant type, liquor license held by next door, Llc. Dba. West End Tavern, 9, 2 6 Pearl street boulder, Colorado, 8 0 3 0, 2 should be suspended or revoked. If you are here to speak on this matter, please go ahead and raise your hand.

[76:17] I see the licensee. Mr. Reid is here. Okay, and then all hands raised are being promoted to panelists. If you want to present the stipulation. The city has received a signed stipulation from next door, Llc. Doing business as West End Tavern that has been submitted to the authority. Great is there a motion to accept the stipulation of facts? Member Califano would make a motion to accept.

[77:01] Member. Carr would second that motion to accept. All in favor. Say I, Member California, I. Remember Epsilon, I. Number car. I. Member Haggerty. Aye. Member Roberts, I. Thank you, and I see that Adam Reid is here along with a few other people. If you will. Whoever is going to represent the licensee. Just let me know, and then I will swear in whoever believe we believe is going to be giving testimony, and you will not be there, you do not have an attorney. Is that correct? Correct. Okay, perfect. And it'll be me, Dave. Okay, Dave, perfect. Dave, if you well, are you the only one that you believe is going to be giving testimony. Yes. Okay, great. If you'll say your name and spell your name for the record. Dave query QUER y. Amazing, and if you'll give your address for the record.

[78:02] 2. 9. 9. Green rock boulder, 8 0, 3, 0, 2. Thank you so much, and if you'll raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the beverage. Licensing authority is true. I do? Thank you. and I'll hand it over to authority. Great. And, Mr. Query, since you're not represented by council, I'm going to go ahead and read read the proceedings into the record places. This is a public hearing before the beverage licensing authority of the City of Boulder to determine whether or not the license of next door Llc. Doing business as West End Tavern for a hotel restaurant type. Liquor license shall be suspended or revoked on the basis of the violations alleged in the order to show cause served upon the licensee and requiring the licensee's presence here today. Because this is a disciplinary proceeding, the authority shall not ask for or allow comment from members of the general public on the guilt of the licensee.

[79:04] or the appropriate discipline to be imposed. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony presented by the city and by the licensee. In order to enable this authority to make the findings, and to determine by a preponderance of evidence whether or not the licensee has violated the various laws, as alleged. If, in the course of the hearing, testimony, or other evidence establishes the guilt of the licensee, if of a violation of some other law, rule, or regulation than those stated in the notice. The licensee shall be afforded a reasonable continuance upon any offer, that evidence in defense, explanation, and mitigation is not then available to the licensee, but can be obtained within the period of a continuance not to exceed 10 days. A record is being made of these proceedings, all testimony shall be given under oath. The rules of evidence and requirement of proof and procedure shall confirm to the extent practicable to those in civil non jury cases, but when necessary to ascertain facts affecting the substantial rights of the public or the licensee, the authority may receive and consider evidence not admissible under such rules. If such evidence possesses probative value, commonly accepted

[80:13] by reasonable and prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs. the rules of privilege required by law shall be respected in this proceeding, and the chair may exclude incompetent and unduly repetitious evidence. The chair shall rule upon all questions of evidence and procedure, subject to being overruled on motions sustained by a majority vote of those members of the authority present. Should a licensee wish to present a fine in lieu of active suspension days. They should notify the authority of this after a penalty is determined, if any, but before suspension posting is discussed, and the licensee should be prepared to supply an estimated per day. Suspension dollar amount for the authorities. Deliberations? Is there any ex parte communication or conflict from of interest from any of the Board members. Member Califano. No.

[81:02] Remember Absalom, no. Number card, now. Member Hagger. Do you know. Remember Roberts, no. All right, Mr. Query, this is your time to explain what happened. Okay, well, I wanna thank you for the time. I I don't know any of you all, which is a good thing, which means we haven't been in front of you. We hosted the Restaurant Hospitality Group for a while, but we don't do that. So appreciate all the work that you all do. We have had a situation at the West End Tavern, where a bartender who had been hired 2 weeks previously. Which really doesn't matter. If it's a 2 week employee or a 10 year employee, the standards are the same. The video that was supplied to the police officer and to, I believe, was handed in our our mitigation package shows the bartender looking at the Id on video for 45 seconds, and then for the remaining 15 seconds he pulls out his phone to do the math.

[82:10] And he still missed it. But it was not for a lack of effort. So our training is is in place. He had come to us and his he was in the Grace period. He'd only been with us for 2 weeks. He was signed up to get his tip certification and he that had not happened in that 2 week period he, he was not fired, that is, in our in our guidelines, and how we handle things that's gone back and forth. I've known Michelle since high school, and we've had a lot of conversations about this over the years. But we handle every situation differently. And in this case this guy made a big effort to do the right thing. He just clearly did just flunked math in high school. So he missed it, and he served. He served the drink.

[83:03] We have a lot of policies and training in place with our alcohol awareness training. The West End tavern has been there for 37 years. We've estimated we've served over 5 million cocktails just in those 37 years. I have owned liquor licenses in Boulder County since 89 we have 8 current in Boulder County. We we take this very, very seriously, and when someone takes that which is similar to a gun in your hand, the service of alcohol, and all the ramifications that can come of that we take it very seriously the bartender in question. His case was dismissed for various reasons. And we're hoping that, given the circumstances and our long efforts at, you know, not having a lot of interaction with the bla for negative reasons. That we can

[84:02] have a good outcome of this situation. Great. Thank you for that. Are there any questions from the Board? From Mr. Query. No, but caitlin and team. My bla packet like isn't working, and then, when I refresh it, it says there's no pages in it. And I've tried a whole bunch of things. Yeah, is everyone else having that problem. Yeah, I'm so sorry, you guys. So there as you. Some of some of us were seeing like some corrupt pages. And so the only the way that the Bla packet is uploaded is through central records. And so central records is re uploading it so that you don't see those corrupt pages anymore. But it is taking much longer than it's supposed to. So I apologize. There's not really a way for me to email it out or anything, because it's so large. So

[85:06] that's just an fyi on that. I will if I if we can get like a time that they think it's going to be uploaded, I'll let you know. But that's why that's happening. I'm so sorry. That's okay. I'm just glad it's not my fault. Yeah, I remember, Roberts, I I downloaded the whole packet, you know. and I I have like I don't know, like randomly, only a couple of blank pages. Not the entirety of the packet at all. I mean right now, in this mitigation packet I see almost everything. There is one blank page, though. I can upload. I have a full copy. I can upload it to Google, drive and share it out with the other members of the authority. That would be helpful. I'm missing 3 blank pages in this mitigation. Member cart. Would that be so? Nothing's changing. They're just re uploading it.

[86:00] That's correct. Nothing is changing at all. And if you would like, there's the option to take the recess to send that out and take a look at that if you'd like. It's up to you all I mean. I it'll take me about a minute to upload it. It's about 100 Megs, and then I can send it out. Okay. Do you want? Can we take a brief recess? 5 min? Not even. Yeah. 5 min back at 4, 35. What's up? Harrison?

[87:19] I've resume the recording whenever you're ready to start again. Did you all receive it? Yeah. Yes, thank you.

[88:26] of variation. I was. Gonna ask if we're all good to proceed alright. So did we have any questions for Mr. Query. Mr. Query, so you did retain this employee. We did, you know it goes back and forth to firing makes a huge statement for everyone else.

[89:00] Retaining the ploy makes a huge statement for everyone else. That's certainly a lightning strike that I don't see happening again. We actually have had him lead some liquor awareness classes. and he's doing the in house alcohol tips stuff that we do. So he becomes the spokesperson due to his newly elected 1st guy to fail a sting in our company in decades. You know, we've we've we've got so many restaurants, and we've had so many stings and we get it. But it's really frustrating when when it happens, and it's human nature that people will make mistakes. And it's just a super frustrating situation to be in. Well, I think that's great, and oftentimes, you see, these employees become some of the best. Oh, yeah, absolutely. He's he. He's showing up for work on early. You can guarantee that.

[90:00] Are there any other questions? So I have one other question. It appears that big red F does their own compliance checks. That's something you continue to do. We have bars on on have for a long, long time self induced health inspections, bars, inspections. We we believe in all that. It's good good practices, yeah, for sure. Thank you. Alright! If there are no other questions, Mr. Creer, is there anything else you wanted to present to us? Well before. I can't say anything else. If there is an opportunity to have any sort of a a fine in in lieu of closure. That would certainly be our 1st choice. After we determine sentencing, you can definitely request that. Okay. All right. So at this point we will close for deliberation.

[91:01] Does anybody have a motion. This is Member Absalom here, and I just wanted to kind of echo the thoughts of chair calafano around when you're you know, in terms of like terminating employee going through this process and making them the spokesperson for being someone who's going to represent responsible alcohol service. I really i i i i encore that I applaud that. I think that's something that really helps develop a culture of responsible alcohol service and terminating an employee does send a message, but retaining that employee does mean a lot and that does lend a lot of mitigation. In my personal opinion. I see tons of mitigation around this particular license fee and I'm my my gut feeling is to take days off, or whatever we're talking about as a base value. But I want to open that to discussion, because I think that this particular licensee is has proven. as Mr. Curry said, decades of responsible alcohol service. The policies are in place. They have in-house training.

[92:02] This is a 1 off for a company that has done so many services about call in our community. And I I don't know. I'm I'm willing to to entertain all kinds of discussion around lowering whatever table value there is for this. Member, Absalom. Let me go ahead and make a motion first, st and then we can open that up for discussion or changing that. I would make a motion based on the mitigating factors of rather than the table value I would do. 2 days served with 11 held in abeyance. So there's a motion there. Are there any other thoughts from? I I do have a thought around that as well. I I was thinking. I mean, that is something that we've done. I've actually seen this happen with great mitigation in the past, where we've done done something like this, with lower days served, and more in advance. And I think that that is a is a fair start. But I think we can maybe go further. I'd like to hear from the other Board members. Personally.

[93:07] What are you suggesting? Member Absalom? I'm suggesting going to one day served and 15 in advance. So that's sort of where my head was at. I I reviewed the extensive mitigation packet, and I mean we all know they get red F in the community. you know. Very responsible business, you know, owners. And I. I do see this as a like a lightning strike, something that is probably hopefully not going to happen again. But I I was. I would lean towards a 1 day served with a 15 days in advance. That was actually what I was thinking before you said anything ever Absalom. So, Member Califano's motion dies without a second member, Absalom, was that your motion? Was that an official motion. That's the official motion. I would make a motion for one day service, 15 days in advance.

[94:04] Member. Carr would second that motion. All right, we have a motion, and a second all in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. Number, Absalom. I. Member Carr. I. Member Haggerty. I. Member Roberts. Aye. Now there was a request for a fine in Loo. I think we've set a precedence that we don't really do. Those. So Member Califano would not be willing to entertain that idea. I agree. Member Roberts agrees. I've abstained from these in the past, and last month I did abstain only because I've been an operator of restaurants, and I abstained from this, because I do understand the precedent that's been sent by this by our authority, but I also do feel that I I have had the opportunity to actually be on the other side of this and ask for that, so I will abstain from that discussion.

[95:04] But that's my choice. I'm not going to entertain a fan in the Wolf at this point, either. And I, yeah, I'm in agreement with you all. Alright. So request for a fine in lieu was denied. What we have now we need to determine. Days served. Does Monday seem okay for everyone. Yeah. right? So the the day served, the one day served will be this upcoming Monday. You can remain open just the sale of alcohol cannot happen. What if we have? I'll check. But what if we have a wedding that we've taken a deposit on? And we've got a

[96:00] you know we we do a lot of events. What if we've got Coach Prime in there? What if we've got something going on that night. Well, this is the time to let us know of that. and then we can determine if we're willing to move the date. We? We just heard the date. So that'll take a minute to figure out which I'll do right this second.

[97:25] hey, Harrison, when you said, no, you mean there's nothing going on. Is that correct? Nothing on the schedule. Transcript. Yup. Monday. Alright, great Kristen or Caitlin! Excuse me, I did it again. We can have those ready by Monday. Yes, an email with poster instruction or poster. Pick up instructions. And you can pick them up anytime over the weekend before Monday. Alright great. Well, thank you. Mr. Query.

[98:00] Thank you. Thank you. Give me a second. Get everyone on the right place. Okay. next, we have agenda, item 10, which is show cause hearing concern in an alleged violation. Whether the hotel restaurant type, liquor license held by held by stage client, 499 Llc. Dba. Embassy suites in Hilton, garden in 2 6 0 1 Canyon Boulevard, and 2 7 0 1 Canyon, Boulevard Boulder, Colorado, 8 0, 3, 0, 3 should be suspended, suspended or revoked. If you are here to speak on this matter, please raise your hand, and I will let you into the panelists.

[99:06] and it looks like their attorney, Brian prave is being let in, and then a representative for the licensee. And while they're getting settled, if you want to present the stipulation. The city has received a signed stipulation from sage client, 499 Llc. Doing business at Embassy Suite and Hilton Garden Inn. That stipulation has been submitted to the authority. Thank you. For that? Is there a motion to accept the stipulation of facts. Member car will accept the stipulation of facts or make a motion to accept the stipulation facts. Member Abston will second that motion. All in favor. Say, I remember California, I. Member Absalom. I. Member Carr. Aye. Remember, Haggerty, I. Member Roberts. Aye.

[100:01] Thank you. And I just wanted to let everyone know that the packet is back on the website, and it is bug free. So there's no more black pages in there. and mr. Profit. Who do you believe will be testifying today? His name is Mr. Joe Steyskel. He's our area managing director. Thank you and Mr. Seismol, will you go ahead and say your name and spell your name for the record. Sure Joseph Steicle, Joseph, JOS. Eph Steicle, STEI SKAL. Thank you so much, and if you'll give an address. Sure address is 8 5 0, 1 orchard way. Arvada, Colorado, 8 0 0 7. Thank you, and if you'll raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the beverage. Licensing authority is true. I do? Thank you. Great and Mr. Profit, I feel like it's been a very long time. But if we could get you to record your attorney, Id.

[101:07] Certainly Brian profit. Registration number 31, 1 0 1 on behalf of the Licensee sage client, 499 Llc. Dba. The Embassy Suites and Hilton Garden Inn, a dual hotel. Thank you for that, and since you're representing his counsel, I'd ask if you'd be willing to waive the reading of the proceedings into the record. We would so wave, particularly at this hour. Thank you for that and appreciate it. Is there any ex parte communication or conflict of interest from any of the Board members? Member? Califano? Now. We were Absalom. No. Remember carra! Now. Remember? How do we know? Member Roberts, No. All right, great Mr. Profit, you may proceed. Thank you. And good afternoon, everyone again. Brian. Profit on behalf of the licensee prior to today's hearing, we did submit our mitigation packet to the board. Hopefully it is bug free, and you have that before us or before you, I should say but before we get into that. First.st we certainly admit there was a violation here. Hotels are often interesting situations in that. Particularly like this one.

[102:18] We have a number of places where alcohol might be purchased. We have restaurants, we have banquet facilities, meeting rooms, but at this hotel, or these 2 hotels, actually, which are combined under a single liquor license. We also have what we refer to as the market. and that is, unfortunately, where this violation occurred. Again, we absolutely admit that there was a sale to minor at our facility. The individual Mr. Homan, Marcus Homan, who made that sale was tip strained most recently in January of 2023, he asked for identification from the operative. Reviewed it, saw the year was 2,003. If I'm doing my math correctly, but unfortunately didn't further do the math regarding the month and day and made the sale. As a result of that Mr. Holman was not let go. Rather he was retrained and disciplined.

[103:19] It was made very clear to Mr. Homan that if something like this were to ever happen again. We are not a 3 strikes facility, rather a second violation. A second mistake like this would absolutely result in his termination. Mr. Homan was also required to undergo retraining through I believe it was serve safe. It was a State approved course, and we had a number of folks who were up for renewal. who went through a recent course just this past month. As I was saying, we are a dual branded hotel we have 204 rooms in the Embassy suites we have 172 rooms at the Hilton Garden Inn.

[104:03] all of our alcohol service staff are tips or serve safe or other state approved training or receive training through that as well as internal training which can include and does include I I started to say, monitoring, shadowing is what I mean to say. They begin by shadowing other servers, bartenders, and then they move more into a front facing role with the person they were shadowing than following them. For a period of several days. We also have procedures and protocols in place which anyone who is involved in the sale of alcohol must go through with management staff as part of their onboarding process. And pardon me, and then sign that is placed into their file, and it is something that is reviewed with them on a regular basis. When they undergo their own

[105:02] meetings performance updates. Additionally, all of our restaurant staff does. Well, actually, it's more than just restaurant staff. All members of staff do pre shift meetings. As part of the the process at the hotel. Certainly alcohol sale service, and those types of things are things that are often discussed at those meetings as part of our mitigation packet. We have provided to you those training certificates and spreadsheets, our written policies, procedures. One thing I I do want to make clear. As I was re reviewing my cover letter to you earlier today. The use of birth date, input cash registers. I realized my letter was a bit unclear. This is a policy and procedure that has been established. Now. as a result of this particular incident, the hotel reviewed their policies. Procedures, believed that this was something that they had looked into a little bit before, but unfortunately was not in place at the time of this event. It has now been made a permanent policy and procedure for all alcohol employees. And if there are any questions about how this particular app

[106:26] works, Mr. Steiskel is available here to walk you through that. Now, one of the most important things I do want to discuss, and it's 1 of the things that makes hotels in particular. An interesting and and different creature, and it has to do with community involvement. We are a rather large, as I mentioned, 2 hotels, together with over 370 rooms. We put on a lot of events for the community, for the university and organizations who are part of that, including events coming up over the next several weeks. These events are booked months and months in advance, and often involve hundreds of people.

[107:10] I had mentioned many of them in my letter, but they include many fundraisers. both from, for instance, the Cu college of engineering, their awards dinner or boulder country day school gala just this coming weekend. We have a fundraiser and gala by the sorry Rocky Mountain equality gala on. I believe it is Saturday evening. We're expecting well, over 250 people. It is their annual fundraiser, including a silent auction. And I I say all of this because hotels again. Are such a community destination, and one that a mistake like this affects me personally, I believe. Perhaps more. Not just the licensee.

[108:07] but the community, then maybe some other types of licensees as a result. And I I want to let you know we will be requesting the opportunity for a petition for a fine in lieu my apologies. Should you choose to issue a an active suspension? Lastly, by way of a bit of introduction for Mr. Steischel. He is our, as I mentioned, area managing Director, which is really like the general manager of these 2 hotels. Mr. Steiskel is very involved in the community. He sits on the board of Directors of the Boulder Hotel and Motel Association. He is also the current chairman of the Board of the Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau. both of those organizations. While they are not your preferred rar group discusses amongst themselves and promotes safe practices in the community. In fact, one of your former members was a chair of the I believe it was chair of the Boulder Hotel and Motel Association.

[109:15] and so I I do hope that you would take a look at our mitigation packet, as well as particularly the fact that this particular sale did involve our employee requesting identification. He attempted to do the math in his head, and utterly made a mathematical error and engaged in the sale. We take full responsibility for that. and we would ask that as a result of the mitigation before you, that you would consider a lesser suspension in this matter. Thank you very much. Great. Are there any questions for Mr. Profit? I'm I'm not sure I Caitlin, was the letter in our packet.

[110:05] Let me look! We submitted a cover letter, and we actually did it as 2 separate Pdfs. There was the cover letter, and then there were the the mitigation materials. Which were the attachment there, too. Check off on. I see it on page 2, 70 of the packet. Thank you. It didn't look like a letter to me is all thought it was part of the training. Thank you, though. I think I did sign it so. Are there any questions from the board for Mr. Profit.

[111:06] Mr. Profit? And this may be more for your client. But, What upcoming events do you have this next week. Certainly I have a list of these. But Mr. Steiskel is more intimately familiar with those events, and I would defer to him. I know, for instance, I did mention the gala this coming Saturday. But there are also some things during the coming week, and I also understand they're fully booked this coming week, and then the following weekend, I understand the I have a dream luncheon is taking place, I think. Friday. But Joe, are you with us. I am correct. Maybe you could give a little bit more color to some of the events and the size of those events that are taking place at the hotel. That is correct. So we do have the Rocky Mountain equality gala happens this Saturday that is, for 350 people. And then we are hosting a meeting for scout, clean energy, Noaa and Grupo Bimbo! All have meetings with us during the week. Next week, with evening receptions that are taking place.

[112:12] And that goes all the way. Monday through Thursday, and then Saturday we have the I have a dream luncheon and that right now has 320 attendees attending that particular meeting as well, too. and that's in the immediate next 7 days. And if I'm not mistaken, I think maybe you even have a wedding or wedding reception. Next weekend as well. Correct. We have 2 wedding welcome receptions that are happening outdoors the following weekend. And the leave no trace. Summit. That starts on October 7th and that's a week long. Conference. That's happening, and obviously leave no trace as a local company here. That kicks underway. So we've been planning that particular meeting for the last 18 months.

[113:03] Thank you. Thank you for that. Any other questions from the board. Yeah, this is Member Ashland. This is a question for Mr. High school. So in terms of you, you know your your regional manager. So in the affidavit here, who was the manager listed here that was mentioned. Is that you. That is me, correct. Yeah. So. Yeah, so you're you're hands on. Yeah, I'm I'm the general manager day to day. You know. I guess to the area general manager is just a title, because I have oversight of the Homewood suites here in Boulder as well, too, which is over on Baseline Row. But I don't. I don't oversee the day to day there specifically. But I am here day to day. Every day. My team can attest to that. I'll be here this Saturday. For that particular gala and so yeah, I'm here quite often. And in this particular incident that transpired on May 30th with Mr. Holman. He texted me directly, about 10 min after it transpired admitting his guilt, and how embarrassed he was that he he made the misstep and I take great pride in the fact over the

[114:09] I've been here since the beginning of 19, and we've passed several of the undercover operations and and to fail one. Obviously, our team is well aware of the implications of that. Unfortunately, and what's going to transpire because of it? And he does as well, too. So. Well, I'm glad to hear that you are hands on and present at that at that location, because when it comes to huge management companies and the hotels. I do get concerned about someone being there and present, and I'm happy to hear that you are on site. And are you got a text right away when it happened. So I do appreciate that information. Thank you. Sure my pleasure. Any other questions from the board.

[115:00] All right. Mr. Profit. Is there anything else you would like to close with. No Thank you for your time today. Again it was a mistake one that we take full responsibility for. And I I would like to have the opportunity to make a pitch for a fine in lieu here. I know that isn't typically something that is done by this board, but particularly given some of the circumstances of the size of this hotel, and the implications that an active suspension, especially an immediate or nearly immediate active suspension may have. I would like to be given that opportunity. Following your decision. We do believe there is sufficient mitigation for this authority to lessen the standard. 5 and 9 that is in your guidelines. But with that, said I, would be asked to be given the opportunity to speak further. Regarding a petition for a fine in lieu. Oh, I I guess I should also mention we did bring, and of course I'll cover this in a moment, if given that opportunity. I have available sales records to give this authority an idea there, a a typical and average day's alcohol sales over the last 2 months, and by that I mean the months of July and.

[116:26] We'll we'll cover that when we after this thing. So but I'm glad you have that ready. So thank you. Thank you. Alright. So at this point we will close for deliberation. Is there a motion? Then Member Califano would make a motion for 3 days served with 9 held in advance.

[117:05] And that's based on the mitigation percentage to you today. Right chair, Calibano. Correct. Threats. I do see mitigation here, and based on that motion member absolutely make a second. All right, we have a motion, and a second all in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. Remember Aslan, I. Network car. I. Member Haggerty, I. 3 days served, and how many in a band. I left it at table. Value 9. At at 9. I guess I'm and maybe I got distracted because my kid walked in here very sorry. But what was the reasoning behind that motion for 3 days.

[118:08] Mitigating factors that they've submitted. And you've and the boards feel that 3 is necessary. We had a motion and a second. So right now it's just a matter of voting yay, or nay, for it. I'm gonna vote. Nay, so, Roberts. Nay. Thank you. Now they have asked for a fine in lieu Mr. Profit. Can you give us those numbers at this point? Certainly I'd be happy to Our July and August sales. Alcohol sales totaled $155,555 that app that works out to $2,508, 95 cents per day.

[119:04] Thank you for that. in terms of discussion. Member Califano. I I do feel very. I I don't want to damage what they have booked already. I think it has severe consequences for this. I think that in this case it is a very, very unique once in a Blue Moon type situation, where I would be willing to accommodate a fine in lieu. I don't know how the other Board members feel. This is member aflom. Haven't we always also discussed moving those suspension dates around certain events rather than saying, Hey, it has to be this date, like we did last month, with another licensee. We can. The impression I get is that they've got something booked from now until eternity and it And this is just because I personally work in the industry of that, and I I know how it goes with that

[120:02] I hear you. And they have to be served consecutive, which is the other issue. Yeah, you know it. It's hard for me to ascertain the thought of a fine and loo, based on a specific industry based on what we're talking about with other licensees, because it's just hard for me to to have that discussion, because, as you said previously, we have to think about what we have done in the past, and we very, very rarely will allow a fine loop, but these are extenuating circumstances, and I respect that. So I'd like to hear from the other board members about that. This is Member Haggerty. you know I'm I'm I'm torn as well. I think these yeah, certainly our special circumstances. And yeah, when when there are going to be 3 consecutive days when there's not something booked, would be kind of hard to imagine anytime soon. Is that something that the hotel would be able to provide us. If asked for. And I'm

[121:01] how, how far out are we able to go with? That? Is that. Next 30 days. Yeah. So I guess I would ask if there's a 3 day period in there. In the next 30 days. Mr. Steiskel, he, Joe, had texted me. But, let me ask quickly. The question of the next 30 days is that required under the boulder any of your internal rules? Or is that a preference that the authority has? And I only asked that question because, while you were discussing Mr. Steischel texted me and suggested 3 days in a row. That would be a Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, but unfortunately they're in October and fall outside of that 30 day. and again, I don't know if that is a mandate requirement or simply a suggested rule that you follow specifically. He had indicated to me, October 28, th 29, th and 30, th as being 3 days

[122:10] weekdays at the hotels, where they do not have anything at least large booked. Roberto. Yeah, thank you for that. The bla rules of procedure. Subsection, 10. Dash, 2, dash, 3. Subsection, a talks about show cause hearings. And I apologize. It's subsection, e. That the suspension dates shall be served by licensee within 30 days following the show cause, hearing on consecutive days, and on days when the licensee would otherwise be open for business. So that is not policy. That is an actual rule.

[123:07] So my my perspective on it is like. you know, this is A is a large hotel. They do have a lot of events, and I'm not normally in favor of a fine in lieu. But I, you know, think about the community. The effect this will have on the community as well, not just on the licensee and and those events that they're expecting to have fundraisers and other types of things. And I I want to take that into perspective, that by imposing suspension days on days when there, there may be events for local community, you know, businesses and nonprofits. It could affect their fundraising as well, and I don't want it to have those unintended consequences. So I would be in in favor of a fine and loo. In this very specific scenario.

[124:01] I tend to agree with the community aspect. I don't think that our community members should be punished for a mistake. and I wouldn't want one of our local establishments that has a good reputation, and has outsiders coming in to have a tarnished reputation for something that was a mistake, and a 1 time thing. I think that's where I was leaning more towards like one day served. But I'm not sure that that's still on the table. so if it's not, then I would consider and move up. Great. So let's since we've heard from all the members, let's go ahead and do a motion member. Califano would make a motion to grant the fine in lieu for 3 days served.

[125:00] Is there a second. I'll second your I'll second Member California member. California's motion to accept a fine in lieu of 3 days served. Great all, in. Just just to clarify with the advanced days, still apply. The advanced days. I believe they would. Yes, they would be those would be served should they get another violation within the next year. And if I may, and I would defer to Mr. Ramirez on this if I'm not mistaken. And as a point of order, I believe that you had made a motion for suspension. There was a second, but I'm not sure that was ever voted upon, and I think that a suspension must be ordered, and then the petition for the fine in lieu may be accepted. Following the order of a suspension. I just want to make sure we have all of our ducks in a row. Understanding this is atypical for this authority.

[126:04] Roberto. Yeah, thank you. My notes and I could be wrong. You know, this is, we've been at this for for 2 and a half hours right now, but I thought everyone voted in favor except for Member Roberts. So it passed 4 to one once that was on the record. Then there was a consideration of the of the fine in lieu of. My apologies. All right. So all in favor. Say, aye, member, Califano. Aye. Remember, absalem, that. Member Carr. Aye. Member Haggerty. Aye. Member Roberts. Aye. Alright once in a lifetime. Fine! And Lou granted. We can get those numbers over to. Where did she go? Oh, Caitlin, I lost you for a minute there.

[127:00] if we could get those numbers over. That will be the violation that we have, or the suspension that we had put on, not necessarily suspension, but fine in lieu. Thank you. May we have until noon tomorrow to complete that? And I only ask because my daughter well, I need to go pick her up from school. I think that's fine, Caitlin. Is that still good for you? Yeah, that's fine. And Mr. Prapa, you have my email address. I believe. I do, I'll send those directly to you. I'll have that either tonight or 1st thing in the morning. No problem. Thank you. Members of the authority. Thank you very much. Have a wonderful evening. Alright. Thank you. And I'll just make sure everyone's where they're supposed to be. Okay. We are. Gonna

[128:00] skip ahead here. Okay, we are on agenda. Item 11, which is public hearing and consideration of an application filed on July 30, th 2024, from Chiba hut dba chiba, hut 1, 3, 4, 6, Pearl Street suite, 120, boulder, Colorado, 8 0. 3 0. 2 elevated Inc. 100%. Owner of Chiba Hut Investment company, David Timmins, President Kyle Archer, secretary, treasurer, and registered manager, the business mailing address of Po. Box 1, 2, 2, 5, 9, Denver, Colorado, 8 0. 2, 1, 2 for a new hotel restaurant type, liquor license. If you're here to speak on this matter, please go ahead and raise your hand. and they are coming in.

[129:03] and I see that they're attorney mr. Linden is present. And Mr. Linden, who will be giving testimony for this matter, so I can give swear them in. Hello! Kyle Archer. Okay, and then I see Miss Garrison is here as well. Mr. Azure, I'll start with you if you'll say your name. Spell your name for the record. Kyle, Archer, KYOE a, RCHE r. And give an address. 6 0 5, 6 espalier court, Fort Collins, Colorado. Thank you. So, and will you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the beverage. Licensing authority is true. I do? Thank you and Miss Gertson, if you'll say your name, spell your name for the record.

[130:02] Hi, Caitlin. Yes, for the record. My name is Eva Gerritsen. Last name is GARR. ETSO, n. 1 of the owners of liquor licensing professionals, and we are located at 5 5, 1 5. Saddle Rock place in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Thank you. If you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the beverage. Licensing authority is true. Yes. And do you also swear or affirm that you or your employees have posted the premise for 10 days prior to today's hearing? Yes. Thank you so much, I will hand it over to you. Oh, and I'm sorry before we do that, Mr. Linden. If you'll record your appearance, and then I'll hand it over to the chair. Sure. Good evening. My name is Vince Linden. I'm a Colorado licensed Attorney registration number 2, 3, 2, 8, 5. I'm present today with Kyle Archer on behalf of Chiba Hut Investment Company, Inc. Doing business is Chiba Hut for its application for hotel restaurant liquor license. At 13 4 6 Pearl Street Suite suite, 120 Boulder, Colorado.

[131:04] Eva Garrison is also present on behalf of the applicant. Great. Thank you, Mr. Linden. Since you're representing his counsel, I'd ask if you'd be willing to waive the reading of the proceedings into the record. Yes, sir. Great. Is there any ex parte communication from any of, or conflict of interest from any of the Board members? Member Califano? No. We're Absalom. Note. Member, card, now. Member Haggerty know. Member Roberts, No. Great. And is there anyone in the attendees that wishes to speak to this agenda? Item, if you could raise your hand. not seeing any. All right, Mr. Linden, you may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Archer. Can you hear me? And. Please state your full name, spell your last name for the record.

[132:01] Kyle Archer, A. RCHE. R. And are you here today on behalf of Chiba Hut Investment Company, Inc. Doing business is cheap behind. Yes. What is your position with the Applicant company? Chiba Hut Investment Company, Inc. I'm the Company's Cfo vice president and secretary as well as a director, and I hold the same positions for the parent company as well. Okay, is the applicant company wholly owned by elevated huts, Inc. Yes. And is the parent company, elevated huts, Inc. Wholly owned by elevated Inc. Yes. Are you and Mr. David Timmons, the sole shareholders of the holding company, elevated Inc. Yes. Besides you and Mr. Timmons. Are there any other officers or directors of the applicant company, either directly, indirectly, or benefit beneficially.

[133:00] No, it is only Mr. Timmons and myself. Mr. Timmons is the CEO president and director of the Holding Company. And I'm the Vice President and Cfo. And Secretary of stated. Does Mr. Timmons hold 87.7 87.5% of the shares of the holding company. Yes, that is correct. And do you own 12.5% of the shares of the holding company. Correct. Therefore, does Mr. Timmons have an 87.5% beneficial interest in the applicant, and you hold the remaining 12.5% beneficial interest. That is correct. Are you authorized to represent the Company's interests today at this public hearing. Yes, I am. And I think we've established this. Mr. Archer. But are there any persons other than yourself and Mr. Timmons who have a direct or indirect financial interest in the company. No, it is just the 2 of us.

[134:02] Is cheap investment Company, Inc. Colorado Corporation. Yes, it is. Is it registered in in good standing with the Colorado Secretary of State's office. That is correct. And is it authorized to do business under the trade name Chiba hut? Yes, it is. Mr. Archer, do you and Mr. Timmons have experience operating liquor, licensed restaurants in the State of Colorado? Yes, Mr. Emmans and I currently have 17 liquor license restaurants in the State of Colorado. And do they operate under the trade name Chiba hut? That is correct. Will you tell the members of the board how long you and Mr. Timmons have been in the restaurant industry? Mr. Timbin started in the restaurant industry in 2,010, and I started in the restaurant industry in 2,020. Have any of your 17 restaurants ever been cited for selling alcohol to a minor.

[135:03] No. Have any of your restaurants been cited for selling to an intoxicated patron, or any other alcohol? Related defense. No. Now. One location in Denver, I understand, was cited more than 6 years ago for a customer. That was smoking marijuana on your patio. Is that correct? That is correct. 6 years ago, at our location, located 1638 East Colfax, on April 20th during the celebrations from the city was a very crowded event, and some of that overflowed into our venue as well, too, and during that time there was an individual that was smoking marijuana that we did not observe, and we were cited for that we've since put policies in place, that during large events. We have additional individuals to watch the entire premises. Not only for alcohol, but to make sure that there's no marijuana being smoked upon the premises.

[136:16] Is that the only violation to your knowledge that any of the 17 locations perhaps have had? When do you anticipate opening this location in boulder to the public. This November. And for the record. What is the address at which the restaurant will do business. 1346 Pearl Street suite, suite, 1, 20. The company have legal possession of the premises at that location. We do? Do you have a 10 year lease agreement with 3 60 month option periods for the location.

[137:02] That is correct. And are you again applying for another license type which is held by the other operating locations, which is a hotel restaurant license. Correct. And you understand that that license type only authorizes the sale of malt venues and spirit liquors for consumption on the premises. Yes, we understand. Will you give the members of the beverage licensing authority a little background on the type of food the restaurant offers, and its theme, as well as its intended hours of operation. Yes, Chiba is a toasted sub concept primarily serving sandwiches. We do off also offer salads and other treats as well, too. We also have a full bar. The theme of the restaurant is a marijuana. Themed restaurant. However, there is no marijuana sold consumed, included in the food anything like that as well

[138:13] hours of operation are typically 10 am. Until midnight. Sunday through Thursday and 10 until 2 Am. On Friday and Saturday. Do you have a full kitchen, or will you have a full kitchen location. Yes. And will the kitchen be open during all hours that alcohol is served. Correct. Approximately. How many employees do you intend to employ on site during business operating hours? A total employee count at this location will be about 40, with about 10 working at any given time.

[139:04] Scale on. Can you hear me? Can you hear me. I think that was directed to you, Miss Kellogg. I'm so sorry. Yes, I can hear you. Okay, thank you. My computer is flashing that my Internet connection is weak. So I didn't know if I was coming through. Oh, no, yeah. We can hear you. Okay. Is it possible to put the company's liquor, license premises, diagram on the screen. Yes. give me just a second to get there. Thank you.

[140:14] Okay, hopefully, I can see, this is the 1st floor here. Yes. Perfect. Mr. Archer, I will tell you that this diagram on the screen is the diagram that we submitted with the company's liquor license application. Does it appear to be a correct and true depiction of the floor plan for the operating premises. That is correct. And would you take a minute to walk the members through the floor plan, beginning with the entrance and also explain the outdoor patio area. Sure, just to Orient. Everybody here north is on the top side of the diagram this building, located 1346 is on the corner of Pearl and 14.th

[141:05] This unit is on the backside of the building, so the entrance that you see on the east or the right hand side of the diagram is actually a frontage on 14th In which the patrons will generally enter through that 14th entrance, 14th Street entrance. They can go straight in which they will walk up to the queue line, where they can order sandwiches at the register, or they can go to the left, where you see the bar counter notated, and they can order food and drinks at the bar as well. The patio on the south side. Is fully enclosed by a fence open air on it, and has the gates necessary for egress as well, too, and faces back towards the alley behind the building.

[142:05] Thank you. Can you explain where the liquor storage areas are? Yeah. Liquor storage will be behind the bar, and as well as a locked liquor cabinet that you see located in between the 2 restrooms. And are you also seeking to license the basement. Part of the basement is part of our premises. Can we show that Ms. Kellogg? Will any members of the public be allowed into the basement area. No, the access to the basement is through the back of the kitchen in a non customer facing area. Mr. Archer, we listed you as the initial manager for this premises location. Are you aware of that?

[143:02] Yes. And will you continue as the manager for the premises until you're satisfied that the location is operating according to your desires? That is correct, I'll be the initial manager, and once we have established management we will change that. At that time. Have you ever had a liquor violation, Mr. Archer? No. And can you describe the internal training that the company provides its servers. Sure we have internal training and policies, I believe. Some of those policies were submitted as part of our application, as it pertains to ide as well as well as all of our bartenders also receive tips training we also conduct regular evaluations on our bars through our bar operations manager to evaluate, to make sure that alcohol is being served in a safe manner. And per law, and all standards are being met.

[144:07] Will you also ensure that liquor training is conducted by an external Colorado Responsible Vendor Act approved training program prior to opening to the public. Correct. And you'll retain liquor licensing professionals. With whom Eva Garrison is present tonight to conduct the external training for all servers. Correct. And do you have a policy that you require, everyone to present a valid id upon requesting the purchase of alcohol. Yes, we do require for everyone, regardless of age. Can a patron order more than one drink at a time? No. Do you require an id for every individual drink that is served. Correct.

[145:01] Can you describe for the members how drinks are ordered and served. Yes, they're ordered at the bar directly from the bartenders. and served at that time over the bar. Do you sell pictures, drafts. bottles. Eligible. We do not sell any pictures. We do have drafts and cans. Do you allow alcohol to leave the premises. No. Do you deliver alcohol. No. Do you accept vertical identification cards. We do not accept any vertical ids. Of your liquor service, and based on the 17 other operating locations that do businesses. Chiba hut. What do you expect? The ratio wise, the ratio to be with respect to liquor versus food. Our alcohol is typically about 10% of our overall sales.

[146:00] Will you inform your employees that they can be criminally charged if they violate any liquor, rule or statute. particularly with regards to selling to a minor. Yes, we do advise them that they will be criminally charged. Few service to anyone that appears to be exhibiting signs of intoxication. Correct. We would refuse service. Do you believe that you and Mr. Timmons, with your experience in the industry, are adequately familiar with the Colorado liquor code as it pertains to hotel restaurant licenses. We do? You understand that you have to have 2 liquor licenses to operate, one from the city of Boulder and one from the State of Colorado. Yes. And do you understand that the licenses must be timely renewed on an annual basis? Yes. The point of sale system that you'll be installing at this particular location is at the same point of sale system that you use at the other 17 restaurants.

[147:07] It is one that we use at other restaurants. We'll be installing toast as our pos system. It's a pretty common restaurant pos system. And does it enable the company to track purchases and sale of alcoholic beverages. Yes, it does. Does the registered on site manager. In this instance you make the alcoholic beverage orders. Correct. From wholesale licensed vendors. Correct. Do you ever purchase from retail liquor stores. We do not. And are you aware that both the city of Boulder and the State of Colorado can enforce the State statute as well as their own regulations and rules. Yes. Have you been present today since 3 o'clock? And witness to at least 3 enforcement actions against various different licenses in the city of Boulder.

[148:00] Yes. Do you understand that you must maintain copies of the operating locations, business records on site, and that those records must be available for inspection. Yes, and we do. Will there be any live music or dancing at the location. We do not have any live music or dancing. Do you have cameras at the location. We do? How many. There will be 9 at this location. Do you believe that this location will be operated in a manner that will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the neighborhood and the city of Boulder. We do, we believe, based on our experience. We operate well, run restaurants. And we have a positive impact on the neighborhood. We indicated on your application that the total investment for the premises was approximately $700,000 was the source of that investment from distribution from the Parent Company.

[149:02] That is correct. Did the company take out any loans, or are there any 3rd parties that have financed any purchase of this investment? No, this is funded through the company's cash flow. Members of the licensing authority. That would conclude the questions that I have for Mr. Archer. If you have questions for Mr. Archer, he's available. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Archer from the board? The only one that I had was I I don't think I'm seeing a policy in our packet. It was. That was a sense as an exhibit. It should be in your it's either was that as an exhibit, or it should be in your packet. Hang on one sec. I'm seeing one on page 11, believe. I see. 3, 11.

[150:02] 3, 11 is what I said. Yeah. Page 3, 11, essentially a employee, Doc, to be signed. Got it. Thank you for that. Are there any other questions from the board? I did have a question. This is Member Absalom. so this location that you're taking over is the former lazy dog location. I believe? Right. That's correct. So when you're talking about, when you're talking about the way that things were facing on the alley, and I'm just. I'm looking at the drawing right now. Just explain it to me again. So that corner entrance on Pearl Street right right when you walk in. Are you going to be. That's the main entrance. No, see? That's why I'm kind of confused about it. Yeah, yeah, this is the south side of the building. So the corner of the main entrance of Lazy dog you're referring to is on the northeast corner. That'll have nothing. Yeah, that'll have nothing to do with the premises of Chiba Hut. So this is all on the back south side of the building. So the right side that you're looking at is 14th Street. On that drawing there and the patio and the south side there is parking, and then back to the alley behind it.

[151:16] So all the sales are coming off on that south side of what you're saying. Like all the entranceways I'm I'm just confused about, I guess the orientation. The the drawing was a little off for me. But yeah. So you're saying that that northeast entrance is no longer an entrance. That will be a completely different tenant. What you're looking at to the premises does not include. Pearl Street. There'll be another tenant in between got it on the 2. It was a 6,000 square foot building. We're taking the back 2,000 square feet. Thank you for clarifying that. So I'm looking at it, thinking about myself on Pearl Street. So that was my question. Thank you for that. Are there any other questions?

[152:00] The only other comment I would make is regarding the policy. Mr. Archer, I think you could really beef this up. I think it's pretty skeletal at the moment in terms of alcohol service it it doesn't mention anything about signs of intoxication on an individual, or over service, or anything like that. Are you familiar with Ra? I'm not. We do provide pips training as well, too. Where that's covered in that material. As well, I think maybe what you're looking at is solely just rip policy. I believe that is what I'm looking at. Yes. but having that in your policy that they sign would be very beneficial for you. But re, r, it's a group of licensees and restaurants that come together and talk about potential issues coming up in the next few months. Things like that. It is a really good advisory group, and I would highly suggest looking into joining them, and they can definitely help you.

[153:02] beef up your your own personal identification policy and an alcohol service policy to be all encompassing on that. Great. I appreciate that advice. Thank you. With that. I'm not seeing any other questions, Mr. Linden. You may continue. Thank you. I'd like to ask Eva Garrison of liquor licensing professionals to testify with regards to the professional survey that was conducted with respect to the needs and desires of the adult inhabitants of the neighborhood that was defined by your licensing authority. So I'd like to call Miss Garrettsen at this time. Good afternoon. Chair, Califano, and members of the authority for the record. Once again, my name is Eva Garretsen, one of the owners of liquor, licensing professionals, doing businesses, liquor pros. We were hired by the applicant Cheever huh! To perform the needs and desire survey regarding the new hotel and restaurant liquor license at 1346 Pearl Street Suite 1, 20, and I do apologize. We had

[154:07] 1, 2, 1 0 on our report. So I do apologize for that. It is 1 20 we did this particular survey on dates of Monday, August 27, th Tuesday, August 20, or 26, th and 27th made attempted contacts with 405 business owners, managers, and residents inside the area, and obtained a total of 125 signatures, 50 from business owners and managers, and 75 from residential of the 50 and we were provided with the packets by the boulder license, licensing authority. the city Of the 50 businesses that were surveyed in the area, all 50 signed in favor at 100%. They were really looking forward to have this building filled back up again. As Member Absalom pointed out, it was the former lazy dog. So I think a lot of those folks were hoping to fill that building again just to get more foot traffic coming in through there.

[155:15] Of the 75 residential, we had 74 sign in favor at 99%, one opposed at 1%. If we combine these totals, just the raw numbers, 99% signing in favor at 124 and one opposed at 1%. We still try and ask folks to write in why they are in favor or opposed to this License in order to provide the authority with more Feedback. With the reason of opposition, they just simply declined to do so. given the fact that there are 57 other licenses of similar type inside this area, the 99% still clearly shows a positive need and desire, and that the existing outlets have not yet met that need. and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[156:04] Are there any questions for Miss Garrettsen? Not seeing any. Mr. London, you may proceed. Thank you, sir, that would conclude our presentation. Great. At this time we will close for deliberation. Is there a motion. Member, Carr would move to approve the application. Member Absolin would second that motion. All in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. Remember Aps a lot. Amber kar. I. Number, haggardy. Member Roberts. Aye.

[157:01] All right. License approved. Good luck. Thank you very much. Thank you. Like guys. Thank you. Just get everyone settled here. Okay, we are. Gonna jump back up to agenda. Item 8, which is showcase hearing concerning an alleged violation, and whether the hotel restaurant type, liquor license held by the Waffle Lab boulder. Llc. Dba. The lab bar and Bites 1 1 5 5 13th Street, boulder, Colorado, 8 0. 3 0, 2 should be suspended or revoked. And I had a small request if anyone would prefer to take a recess before this show cause.

[158:10] Let me know. I would appreciate a brief recess. Twice. I'll second that. How long would you like? It's 5 45 right now. Bye. 5. Perfect. Next. It's 5, 45, 5 min. Okay, see you in 5.

[159:50] Okay, it looks like we're all back for the most part. And the recording is started again. I'm just gonna go ahead and read this into the record one more time. This is agenda. Item 8. Show cause hearing concerning an alleged violation, and whether the hotel restaurant type, liquor license held by the Waffle lab boulder, Llc. Dba. The lab bar and Bites, 1 1, 5, 5, 13th Street, Boulder, Colorado, 8 0. 3 0. 2

[160:17] should be suspended or revoked, and I just have a note. There's no sign stipulation for this agenda item, and then the bla would have gotten 3 separate exhibits for this. The 1st 2 came. One came on Tuesday. No, I'm sorry one came on. Yeah, on Tuesday. One came on today earlier today. And then the 3rd one came during the meeting. So you would have that in your email. Agenda. Item, a exhibits one and 2 were submitted to us after the packet deadline. So just so, you know. You can choose whether or not to consider those. So those are my notes on

[161:00] this agenda item. And then I see that, Miss Becchio, you're here. Is anyone else wanting to? Okay, perfect. If you anyone else would like to be admitted to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand for this item. I see Ashley is being admitted. and Brad as well. Ms. Becchio, who do you believe will be giving testimony for. On behalf of the Waffle lab. I have Ashley bot perfect. And Ashley. I'll go ahead and swear you in, and then I think I might have to swear a few others in as well. So, Ashley, if you will say your name and spell your name for the record. Ashley bot a SHLE YBOT t.

[162:02] Thank you and give an address. 1, 1, 1, 2 English Oak Court, Loveland, Colorado, 8, 0, 5, 3, 8. Thank you, and if you'll raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the beverage. Licensing authority is true. I do? Thank you so much, and then I'll just ask if there's anyone else who needs to be sworn in. Does officer rec need to be sworn in. Yes, she does. Thank you. Officer, wreck! If you will say your name and spell your name for the record. Oh, off direct! You're muted. I'll get it together. I'm officer Rec. Thank you. And if you'll raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm that the testimony about to give, and the matter before the beverage. Licensing authority is true. I do? Thank you. And then, is there any other anyone else who needs to be sworn in. That on behalf of the city.

[163:02] And not on behalf of the Wapo lab. Thank you. I will hand it over to the chair. Alright. I'm gonna go ahead and read some proceedings into the record for this. The following procedures will be used for this hearing. because the city of Boulder has the burden of proof. In this proceeding, they will be allowed to go 1st and last. In the presentation of evidence and argument the city will present any witnesses and or exhibit it chooses, followed by the lab bar invites the city, will then be allowed to present any rebuttal evidence. Once the evidence concludes, each side will be allowed a total of 15 min to argue any points of law or fact. the city may reserve a portion of its 15 min for a rebuttal argument. If we, the Bla, finds that the city has met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence, we will move into the sentencing or sanctions portion of the hearing.

[164:03] where the lab, bar, and bytes will be allowed to present matters in mitigation, and the city will be able to present matters in aggravation. The city may now proceed. but I do want to ask, is there any conflict of interest from any of the board members or ex parte communication member Califano. No. Remember Absalom, no. And Ricardo. Member Haggerty, now. Member Roberts, now. All right. The city may proceed. Thank you. The city would like to call Officer Leah. Reck as a witness in this matter. Officer, wreck! Can you hear me clearly? I'm sorry. Go ahead and say that again. I'm just confirming. Can you hear me. Yes. Can you please state your full name, and spell your last name for the record. Michael name is Leo Reck, RECH. And where do you work?

[165:01] I work for the city of Boulder Police Department. And how long have you been with the police department? This is my 24th year. Do you have any police or law enforcement experience outside of the city of Boulder. Maybe not. As part of your duties? Do you conduct compliance checks with establishments, with city of boulder, liquor, licenses. Yes, I do. Were you on duty on May 9, th 2,024. Yes, I was. And on that day, May 9, th 2,024, did you conduct a compliance check at the lab bar and bites. Yes, I did. How was the lab bar and bite selected for a compliance check? They were selected because they're a liquor license establishment here in boulder, and we randomly do compliance checks at the local license establishments. Had you received any tips regarding the the lab bar invites. Yes, I did.

[166:05] Are you able to share the concerns you had about the lab bar and bites based on these tips. Absolutely we had some community concerns or individuals that were calling in to express their concern about under age, consumption of alcohol occurring there, as well as co-workers, were routinely expressing that they were having some concerns, that there was some other age individuals that were consuming alcohol. There. And I just for the record, want to object to that line of questioning, insofar as it presents hearsay testimony. May I respond? Chair. Please. The rules of evidence are relaxed at this type of quasi-judicial proceeding under Boulder Revised Code 135 subsection H. As well as the Board of

[167:00] the Blas own rules of procedure. I am looking at page 17 of the 389, page document effective. August of 2023. Objection overruled. May I continue. Please. Officer wreck! Where is the lab bar and bytes located. It's located at 1155 13th Street, which is in the city and county of Boulder, in the State of Colorado. At about what time did you begin the compliance check on May 9.th It was started around 20. So in military time, 2,102, which is in the reports, or 9 0, 2 Pm. How many operatives were used during that compliance check. too. were the operatives under the age of 21, as of that date.

[168:00] Yes, they were. Did the operatives carry identification with them? They carried identification, but it was not their own. Form of identification did they carry. They carried. Each one had a fraudulent driver's license. Where were these drivers? Licenses obtained. So I have a stack of licenses that have been turned in by establishments within the city that I have investigated, and I am not able to locate an owner for them, and that's through like a police database as well as social media. This investigation is trying to determine who the owner is of them, and I could not find anybody. So they get put into a pile of unknown ids. If you will. Did these drivers, licenses match real people. Not that I could find.

[169:02] and. How did you confirm that. But as I previously said, so I had searched in our police databases. We have access to some tools to try to determine the date or the Ver the birthday, or the true identity of the individual that's represented on the identification. And I was not able to find anybody who would match that person. Do the operatives have any pending criminal or traffic offenses at the time of the check. No. Did the operatives have any prior convictions for alcohol, related offenses. Yeah. Were the operative Ids checked before they entered the lab. Bar invites. Yes, they were. Can you describe the appearance of operative number one. So operative one is. He's a white male he has a birth a birthday in July of 2,003. He's about 5 feet 9 inches tall 165 pounds. He has hazel eyes and short brown hair.

[170:14] And can you describe the details contained on the Id. Or a driver's license used by operative one that day. So the fraudulent Id showed that it was It was a picture of a darker skinned male, possibly Middle Eastern descent. He was it said that he was 6 feet, or I'm sorry, 5 feet 6 inches tall, about 140 pounds, with brown hair and brown eyes, with a birthday in August of 2,001. Can you describe the appearance of operative number 2. Operative. Number 2 is a white male. He is 6 feet 4 inches tall. He is

[171:01] 250 pounds. He has light brown hair and blue eyes, and his date of birth is in November of 2,003. When the driver's licenses were checked at the entry where the operatives asked any questions about those drivers, licenses. Operative one with the driver's license of the male with the darker skin. He was asked his middle name, and on the id! It did not have a middle name listed. Who posed that question to the operative. That was the bouncer. And how did the operative answer that question to the bouncer. The operative answered it. He wrote in his statement that it was. He answered, that his middle name was his 1st name, but after looking at the Id. It was a little bit confusing, and so when asked his middle name, he gave his the last name he quickly caught himself, and then he answered correctly, that I don't. I don't have a middle name.

[172:12] Officer wreck to clarify. Can you describe to us the details contained on Operative Number Two's Id. I. I want to make sure this. We're clear. Yeah. Operative. Ids, number 2. let's see, here, it was a trying to find your email notes that I have. the the male and the Id was a white male. He had brown hair and brown eyes, and he was listed as. Why don't we find that sorry about that. Let me find that information. So I did it. Correct.

[173:10] Yeah, you can hear. Oh, it showed that the male had brown hair and brown eyes, and that he was 5 feet 10 inches tall. Did the developer pose any questions to Operative number 2. You did not. Do you believe that the driver licenses were checked thoroughly. I do not. Do you believe that the driver's license were checked diligently. I it doesn't sound like there was any comparison. There wasn't a a book used for comparison like an Id book. There wasn't a scanner used to check the Id. Do you believe that there were discrepancies between the identifying information on the driver's licenses

[174:02] and the physical appearance of the operators? Yes, I do. We're both operatives let into the lab. Our invites that day. We were. After they were let in. Officer wreck. What did the operatives do next? They went up to the counter, where they ordered coors light and. For clarity's sake, what is cores like. Whose light is an alcoholic beverage. Did the server ask to see either operatives id. Not, according to their statement, no. Did the operatives intend to pay for the coors light with their own money. They had marked bills that we issued to them that they intended to use that purchased the alcohol. and. Were those mark bills actually used to purchase alcohol that day.

[175:00] One of them was, Yes. And how do you know this. We were able to get that bill back from. I believe it was the manager. When we asked to get the bill back. We described what it looked like, and he went and got it from the past episode. Was a violation committed at the Lab bar, and bites on May 9, th 2,024. Yes, it was. and what. Violation was that specifically. We had a couple one. We charged an accessory to a crime for the bouncer, and then the one of the servers or the server who sold the alcohol was served a ticket for soul gave, preferred alcohol, and then, later in my investigation, I learned that a 3rd employee had actually collected the money. And so he was also issued a ticket for soul, being prepared alcohol to a money. For the record. I move to strike that line of testimony. Officer. Wreck is not qualified to testify to the existence of a legal violation, there's no foundation being laid in terms of her

[176:10] legal knowledge and understanding of the law or the statute. and. Chair I could lay, I could have the witness lay additional foundations. Yes, please do. Officer, Rick, you testified that you believe a violation occurred. Can you describe how you are qualified to reach that conclusion? So I am post certified police officer, enforcing the laws city ordinances, municipal ordinances as well as State ordinances within the State of Colorado. and. How long have you specifically been engaged in liquor? Related enforcement, or rather alcohol, related enforcement.

[177:00] Well, throughout my career. periodically it would. I was a pro strip mall officer for 8 years. So it occurred then. But specifically for this position. I started this position in January. and. Did you personally take any legal action based on what occurred at the lab that day? Personally. you clarified. Yes. Did you write any tickets? Yes, I did. And what is your authority to do so. As I said, I'm post certified, so I'm allowed to issue tickets within the City of Order and refer them to the courts. Care person. The city believes it has laid adequate foundation in response to the Council's objection about the ability to testify about whether a violation occurred, and we would not, and we request that this testimony not be stricken from the record.

[178:13] Yes, I would not strike that from the record as well. Officer. Rick, did you speak with the specific employee who served the coors line. Yes, I did. And did you explain to that employee what had just transpired from your perspective. Yes, I did. Did this particular individual receive a ticket. Else you did. Did you happen to speak with a manager for the lab? Our invites. Yes. and. Did you have explain the violation that occurred to the manager. Yes, I mean. Thank you, Officer Rich. No further questions at this time.

[179:07] Alright great! And Caitlin Roberto. remind me the proceedings at this point, and she's allowed do. Are we allowed to question her? And then she's cross-examined. No, the cross examination occurs 1st and then any redirect examination, and then, once both sides have concluded their questioning. You can certainly ask any relevant questions that you believe need answered actually, not only you, but you, as the each member. great. Thank you. Alright, Miss Becchio. Thank you. officer. Wreck! Is it fair to say that the Ids that were used could, in fact, have been valid ids. and by valid, I mean tied to an actual person. I was unable to locate a person that belonged to that I any either of those ids.

[180:04] Did the Ids look real to you? I would have to get the book out to compare them. I'm not an expert in I id verification. So I would have to get the book out to clarify if they were real or not. So you've never been endorsed as an expert on identifying ids in the State of Illinois. and you've never been endorsed as an expert in identifying ids in the State of Iowa, either. Okay. How many other Illinois fake ids have you seen in your career. I I wouldn't. I'd have to get them out and count them. So in your, in your memory have you been able to ever identify, for sure an Illinois fake id within your possession?

[181:00] In my career I have the ability to clear that id for dispatch to determine if the Id is real or not, those are the tools that I'm given in my career. And when you say you, you've testified that you run the Ids through a database, correct. Correct. But you don't have any personal knowledge of how that database actually works. Do you. That's not something we learned in the Academy now. So you cannot testify with certainty as to the accuracy of the information you receive from the database. Correct. There was no information in the database, because the id wasn't real. My question is, you cannot testify to the accuracy of how that database works correct. Correct. I'm not an expert in that database now. And you stated that these ids were kept in in a

[182:01] what a vault of confiscated ids is that right? I didn't say the word vaults we're they're just kept in an area. I have a lot to draw in my office that I keep ids. That are what I consider unknowns that they don't. I cannot identify a an owner or the Id. So you do not actually know where the Ids came from. Is that right? They were seized from one of the liquor license establishments within the city of Boulder. But you don't know specifically where the Id came from originally to the Boulder police department. I would have to look on the back of it when typically, when establishments submit their fake ids, they would write on the back of the Id. Where it came from. I would have to look at the back of the Id to confirm, if we have that information or not. So based on the fact that this Id was confiscated. You don't actually know how the Id was made correct.

[183:03] Friends. And you cannot present to the board any kind of chain of custody from the creation of the Id. Where it went, and how it came to your into your possession. Isn't that right? Right? So you cannot testify here today that with 100% certainty that these Ids were in reality fake, can you. I can cause. I cleared the id through the database by using the name of the person on the Id, including their date of birth in that State that was alleged to have issued it as well as there's an operator license number. that is, I clear as well, so you can clear it a couple different ways through the system, and it came up as new record. You've testified previously, though, that you have no personal knowledge of how that database works. So the reality is, you cannot testify to the actual

[184:04] origination of the Ids. Correct. But okay. have you ever tried to scan the back of either of the Ids. I have not. I don't have a scanner. So you don't know actually what would happen if you scanned the Id and in search of a connection between the Id and a valid person. But you testified that the Ids we're clearly not belonging to the operatives in question. Within your affidavit. Is that correct? But and that's your personal opinion correct.

[185:01] and you've previously testified that you've never been qualified as an expert in identifying fake ids. Correct. Friends. Okay. Wouldn't you agree that if you met someone on the street you personally wouldn't be able to identify the difference between a 5 foot 6 man and a 5 foot 9, man standing in front of you. I wouldn't know. I don't know help if people are good at gauging people. And wouldn't you agree? It's unreasonable to expect somebody to be able to tell the difference between a 5 foot 6 man and a 5 foot 9, man standing in front of them. Oh. I can't answer that question again. I I think I would be able to do that. But I don't know about a person on the screen. If I would be able to know that or not. You testified that operative operative one provided the last name on an Id when he was asked for his middle name. Correct?

[186:02] Right? Wouldn't you agree that the name provided was an accurate name reflected on the Id. It wasn't a middle name on the Iv. In one. You agree? Oh, I'm sorry I didn't mean to cut you off. That's specifically for the middle name. And wouldn't you agree that on occasion young men go by their last name, especially among friends. I don't know. Wouldn't you agree? It's unreasonable to hold Mr. Bouchard accountable when operative one provided the name a name on the Id. That his date of birth actually reflected on the Id. That he was over 21, and his height on the Id was only inches different from the id illustrated on the Id. Or from the height illustrated on the Id. Can you repeat your question?

[187:00] I said, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you agree that it's unreasonable to hold Mr. Bushhara, who is the bouncer accountable for allowing operative number one into the Waffle Lab when the operative provided a name on the Id. The Id. Had a date of birth, reflecting he was over 21, and his height was only inches different from the height reflected on the Id. I would say it would be a totality of all of those things, including the photo on the Ld. That I would think you would want to take into consideration as a bouncer, allowing people to come into establishment. And, in fact, the operative was only 2 years younger from the date of birth, reflected on the did. sure. Correct. Okay, you agree with that. That the operative was 2 years younger than the person on the Id. That's what is stated on your affidavit. Is that correct?

[188:06] As far as operative number 2, it appears the only factor that concerned you was the height difference between the Id and the operative. 5, 10 versus 6, 3. Is that correct? That. And the eye color is different. Wouldn't you agree that it's unreasonable to expect well trained employees to be able to also make calls about height difference when accepting an Id, and evaluating an age appropriate identification. I would think that the highly trained employee would take the totality of the Id into consideration with who's in front of them. You testified earlier that you're, in fact, not an expert on evaluating whether an Id is valid or fake, correct.

[189:00] perfect. So wouldn't you agree that. based upon your inability to testify with certainty to the origin of these Ids, that the Ids could in fact be valid. I testified that I had cleared those ids in the database. and those ids are not valid. You've also testified that the database is not something that you fully understand, nor have direct personal knowledge about how it's been created correct. Correct. So. In fact, you cannot sit here today and testify with certainty that those Ids were in fact fake correct. No, I can. I've been trained on how to clear those ids in those database, but how the database actually retrieves all that information. I don't have that training. but I have been trained in my post certification as well as my training here Post Department on how to clear ids in the Free State system.

[190:09] Have you contacted the State of Illinois directly to personally check into the validity of the Id. Yourself? That has been done through what we call Ncic, which is a National Crime Information Center. And so that is where it was checked. So that would be how I would reach out, reach out. And that's the database that you've been referencing. Correct, and so. Okay, aside from using a database that you don't fully understand, did you personally contact the State of Illinois to determine whether or not the Id was, in fact, fake or valid. Well. As I had said earlier, I utilize their database system. Lurenzi, I see. to confirm the validity of the Id which the Id came back as having no record within that state.

[191:03] Okay, I'm just asking you to answer the question outside of the use of the database. Have you personally done anything further to to contact the State of Illinois to determine if the Id. Itself was fake or valid. No. Okay. Same question for the State of Illinois. Outside of the use of this database we personally contacted the State of Illinois to determine if the Id. Was, in fact, fake. No. okay, no further questions. If I, if I may redirect, I believe that is where we're at procedurally. Absolutely. Off a survey. Your testimony during Cross referenced an identification book. Can you explain what you were referring to when you said Identification Book? Yes, the State issues what they call the Id book which

[192:02] is, and the liquor establishment can obtain a copy of one of those where, if they are in question about. and I ids validity, they can open up the book to the state that the Id was issued out of Nd's comparison, it gives them some tips on on what to compare, to, to determine if it's a valid id. Did the lab bar and bytes have such a book in their possession. On May 9, th 2,024. Objection. There's no foundation for her to testify as to what was or was not in possession of the lab. Bar invites. Over. I'm. The operative did not mention that a book was used to check their Id. Officer, Rick. you testified that you clear these seized ids driver's licenses through a database. Is that correct?

[193:01] Huh! Have you ever cleared an a seized Id or driver's license that did come back to a real person. So there's a couple of different ways sometimes on. If we get a ceased Id, and it'll have what we call an operator license number on it. if I clear so, for example, an Illinois Id. And I clear the operator license number that is on a fake Id. It may come back to an actual person, just not the person on the Id. So is it accurate to say that you have cleared ids within Cic. And they have been associated with a real person in some fashion. Yes. Are those ids used for sting operations?

[194:01] no. Are you certain that the physical appearance of the operatives did not match the Ids? They they tendered to the lab that day? I'm certain. Thank you. No, no further questions for redirect. Alright great! And Roberto, correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe we have this opportunity to ask a few questions. Great. Are there any questions from the board for officer wreck. I just have one quick one. the database that you're using, that you've run the ids through. That is that I don't know how to put this. I don't want to say industry standard, but it's a trusted database by the city of Boulder Police Department. Correct. Yes. And is that database being used due to your knowledge in any other municipalities? Is it a state system.

[195:02] It is run by the State of Colorado, and then the the Ncic portion of that. So Ccic stands for Colorado Crime Information Center. So that's Colorado specific, whereas Ncic is a national is a national database. So that allows us to run the ids out of all the States. And assuming that it's a national database that is used nationally. and these are trusted databases used by multiple law enforcements. Absolutely. Great. Thank you, that's all. I had any other questions from any of the other board members. Oh, yeah, this number. Absalom. Here. Hi, Officer Rick, I I just wanted to ask you a question earlier. You testified that you know compliance checks are run just because that's what the city of Boulder does right. And then there was also an affidavit incident on the 23rd was that mentioned. I didn't remember hearing that in your testimony earlier was that any sort of reason behind going back to the lab.

[196:01] So the reason that that I went back to the lab is because of all the complaints that I had. Okay, yeah. I remember, you met testifying along. Sorry about that. So yeah, the. So there was an incident specifically message in the affidavit on the 23, rd where officers went into the establishment, and there were people running out shoulder to shoulder, coming out of the establishment. so that probably did that make some concern for you to maybe go back and do a compliance check based on that incident. Yes, that was one of them. Cool. I was just trying to cover that. And then one other question I had about just in terms of. And I I guess what I'm wondering about is this sort of profess, this who is like a professional in understanding fake ids in our enforcement community? Is there someone. I I would say. Maybe if you it would be the professionals that teach those fake id classes I am.

[197:00] That is a goal of mine. But I am not there yet. Okay, just as someone who has worked around those people who do train those courses. I'm just wondering why we don't have more people who understand a little bit more about that, because that's concerning to me, just to hear, like we see these fake fake ids all the time, and I've been to a course, and I've seen a book of them. And I'm just understand. I'm trying to understand why we don't have a someone who can understand what a fake Id is, rather than going through the database just by looking at it, and then understanding how a bouncer is supposed to understand that just just that reasoning behind. If it's a fake. Id, that's that good that we don't have anyone that can understand it in our enforcement agencies. Even us who have gone through training in that can maybe not always understand it. So I'm just trying to figure out why we don't have someone can understand what a fake Id looks like in our community. Well, I mean I I believe that we do. I've received over 1,200 fake ids from liquor license establishment so far this year, and

[198:00] quite a subst. I don't have the exact number in front of me, but quite a bit more than that, I think it was around 1,600 last year. So there are people, and I am getting them from like for license establishments, these fake ids that are being seized that are being turned in. So there are people who have taken the training again. That's something that is a goal of mine is to learn more about those and to be better educated, so that I can also, give that information and share that information with license establishments within the city. Thank you. This is Member Haggerty, of a quick question. How did you determine? Which ids to give the operatives. I just took a look through the box that I have of the unknowns, and we tried to. Well, not we. I tried to take some ids that had some specific differences, such as the height the weight on one of them, the eye color, the eye colors were completely different. So we went ahead and used those

[199:05] just because that was there was the totality of it. The skin color on one was a like some darker skin tones compared to my operative and again, it was kind of the totality of the identifications or the and the identity. The descriptors on the fake ids compared to the operatives who would be using them? Did that answer your question? It's kind of long winded, sorry. Yeah, no, I did. Thank you. Also, rick in your experience. If if we were to look at these ids, using one of those, if you were to look at. Look at these ids using one of those books. were there defining features on them that could share that they were potentially fraudulent.

[200:01] I believe they were. But I don't have that book or the Ids in front of me, too. I and I didn't document anywhere. Yeah. Do you recall whether those forms of id were expired? They were both great. It was currently, thank you. Any other questions from the board for Officer Rick. not seeing any. Alright. Well, thank you very much, Officer Rick and I believe this is Miss Vecchio's turn to proceed now. And at this time I I don't have any evidence, or testimony, to present in terms of whether or not there was a violation. I have, or oral argument essentially on the law to present when the board is ready to hear.

[201:03] Yes. Please. Present. You'd like me to proceed. Okay. thank you. The city has failed to meet its burden of proof. One second. Yeah. Apologies, Roberto. Did you have something. I do, because the city has the burden. They get to go first, st and if they choose to to reserve any time. I believe you're gonna give each side 15 min to make the argument. But the city gets to go first, st and if and if she wants to reserve time, we can certainly do that and then the defense can go and use the entirety of their time. But do we have Caitlin, do we have the timekeeper function.

[202:00] I can certainly put a timer up, and it would be 15 min right. Correct, unless the prosecution is requesting to reserve some time. And the city would be requesting to reserve 5 min. Does the 5 min happen first? st No. So we have 20 min. No, she gets 10 min first, st and then the defense. I gets 15 min. Then the prosecution gets 5. Thank you so much. Sure and. The city, too, is prepared for oral argument. Whenever the the authority is ready to hear it. Great. Let's just see about that timer.

[203:07] Okay, hopefully, you can see 10 min. Here. Is that correct? I can see it. Perfect. Alright. Please proceed. When you're ready. Thank you. members of the authority. The city has proven. A violation occurred on May 9, th 2,024, when 2 underage operatives were served alcohol at the lab arm bytes in violation of State law. You will hear from council, most likely about how the city cannot proceed with this action because of statutory language. The city does not agree with Council's reading of the statute in question. Colorado revised statute 44, 3, 9 0. 1. Looking at subsection. 6. A. I. The relevant language, says, if a person who, in fact, is not 21 years of age, exhibits a fraudulent proof of age. Any action relying on such fraudulent proof of age, shall not constitute grounds for the revocation or suspension of any license issued under this article. 3 or article 4 of this title, 4, 44. That statute notably does not define what constitutes fraudulent proof of age.

[204:25] Council will most likely rely on the bare language of 44, 3, 9, 0 1. But council is likely not going to acknowledge that that statute has an associated case law that clarifies when fraudulent proof of age can be raised as an issue for defense. The Colorado Court of Appeals clarified what constitutes fraudulent proof of age and currently valid identification in a 2,008 case, called Lay versus Colorado Department of Revenue. The late court ruled that it is reasonable to conclude that currently valid identification means facially valid, not expired, and valid as to form

[205:08] the late court, held that it would be illogical and absurd to construe the phrase fraudulent proof of age to include all documents regardless of their source, nature or obvious invalidity. We are here today because of obvious invalidity. The authority heard testimony from Officer wreck that the Ids that were tendered simply did not match the physical appearance of the operatives in question. In the totality they had enough discrepancies where the city's position is, they should not have been accepted by a reasonable person doing their due diligence. because the lay court ruled in 2,008, that it's illogical and absurd to construe that phrase, fraudulent proof of age, to include all documents regardless of obvious invalidity. The city's position is that

[206:00] the sting operation that occurred on May 9, th 2,024, at the lab bar, and Bytes, where individuals were given ids that were not associated in the Ncic database with a real person was a permissible act. is permissible under the lay decision for the city to have taken this step and conducted this thing in this manner. you heard that when Operative one was asked by the bouncer what his middle name was, he answered incorrectly with the last name, but was still left it let in even after correcting himself. This operative's fraudulent Id showed him being of Middle Eastern descent, while the operative is white. Similarly operative, 2 had an id that identified him as 5 foot 10 inches, whereas he is really 6 foot 3 inches tall. These are significant differences in appearance that make these ids obviously invalid, and therefore permissible enforcement. Mechanisms under State law

[207:00] counsel may argue that she believes the lay decision is wrong, and that this authority should allow a plain language defense based on the the words of 44, 3, 901, as of today, the lay case has not been overturned. It is still considered good law in the State of Colorado. The Lab bar and bikes will probably want to say that what happened on May 9, th 2,024 is unfair, because the operatives that use their own ids. but that argument is not grounded in the law, and should not be accepted by the authority. The fact of the matter is that underage individuals were served, alcohol on May 9, th 2,024, and this Licensee should be held accountable for violating the terms of its liquor license. The city of Boulder, police department officer wreck. were in compliance with State law when they conducted this thing the way they did, and it does not negate the fact that a violation occurred that needs to be addressed. Thank you.

[208:10] Alright! Great! Thank you for that at this time, and Roberto, correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe this is Miss Vechio's 15 min. That is correct, and if we can have a timer of 15. Alright, Miss Becchio, whenever you're ready. Okay, thank you very much. It is the Waffle Labs position that the city is prohibited from pursuing a liquor, license, violation, and attempting to revoke or suspend a liquor license. When a minor exhibits a fraudulent proof of age, the statutory language is clear and directly on point pursuant to 44, 3, 9, 0. 1, 6, a. 1. It states, it is unlawful for any person to sell at retail. Pursuant to Article 3 or article 4 of this article 40 of this title, 44. To sell an alcohol beverage to any person under the age of 21 years, to a habitual drunkard, or a visibly intoxicated person.

[209:12] If a person who, in fact, is not 21 years of age, exhibits a fraudulent proof of age, any action relying on such fraudulent proof of age shall not constitute grounds for the revocation or suspension of any license issued under this article. 3 or article 4. Of this title 44. Now you heard testimony today from the city that, and you saw an affidavit that it used fraudulent proof of age in its compliance check at the Waffle Lab. Based upon this evidence alone. Under the plain language of the statute there can be no violation. The city has argued that well, to back up the city may say, Okay, well.

[210:00] perhaps under the language of this statute we can pursue a fine and not revocation or suspension. And there are 2 problems with this argument, number one, any fine would be available only in lieu of suspension which would assume suspension is available, and number 2, issuing a fine does not reflect the spirit or intent of this black letter law. The drafters clearly felt that there was something inherently unfair and inappropriate about sanctioning a licensee based upon a sting operation that used a fake. Id. This is not to say that licensees shouldn't be trained and prepared on how to prevent minors from using fake ids. But it is to say that licensees should not be dragged before the board on a show cause. Hearing as a result of this. furthermore, the State Liquor Enforcement Division has long advised the police department that it's inappropriate to operate a Gotcha sting operation using fake ids like the one that happened in this case it's simply not the good use of the police department's time to send operatives around to trick employees of neighborhood and community restaurants into accidentally serving underage cut under opera undercover operatives based upon a planned fake id compliance, check the model guidelines which I have submitted, and is in this

[211:14] in the packet. Page 93 states that it was developed to assist law local law enforcement with their compliance program. And if you go to page 95 of your packet, you'll see that the guidelines specifically state that under the underage purchase shall purchaser shall carry and use his or her own valid identification, or carry no identification. And this is not what happened here. Further, the Law Enforcement agency must, and it stated directly, must ascertain and verify prior to the operation, that the underage purchaser has no other age related identification on his or her possession. and page 96 states that they must present a valid id on request, and may not lie about his or her actual age.

[212:07] And this is this method and this guidance that is presented to the city from the State is accessible still online today on the liquor Enforcement Division website. Now. the city has mentioned the men case, and I submit to the board that the min case is specifically helps and assists us understand the definition of fraudulent proof of age. I'm not saying it's not good lie. I understand. It's it's a case out of the Colorado Court of Appeals. What I am saying is that the crucially the min case, allows the city to pursue violations in the manner in this manner. Only if the city can prove with credible and reliable evidence that the operative used invalid ids ids that are truly fake and not tied to a real person.

[213:03] and if you want to take a look at the case, I I believe that Mr. Ramirez provided the case to the board paragraphs 9 and 10 explain the definition of what constitutes a valid id. and essentially, if the Ids that were presented were valid as to form, and on the list of adequate ids there can be no violation. Looking specifically at paragraph 10, it states under Section D, which explains fraudulent proof of age. Thus the regulation places licensees on notice that if they sell alcohol to a minor after checking identification, that is, one on the list of adequate identification and 2 facially valid as to form and expiration date. The Department may not use the sale as a ground for revocation or suspension of a liquor license, even if the identification is false as to the identity or age of the presenter.

[214:12] This afternoon the city presented testimony, and an affidavit that its operatives operatives presented fraudulent proof of age, and they want to argue that this type of compliance check, based upon the use of fake Ids is legal, based upon the min case. Even if the city applies the law. In the main case the city. the city, has still failed to meet its burden of proof. The city has failed to present credible evidence that it used an invalid. Id. The only evidence that we have presented today is self serving testimony from Officer Leck, and her testimony alone is simply not enough. She has testified. She is not an expert, and has never been accredited or had any kind of foundation as an expert in identifying fake ids.

[215:00] She testified that the Ids looked real to her. She wants the city to just take her word for it. However, she never ran any kind of independent investigation on whether or not these Ids were actually tied to a real or valid person out of the State of Illinois and the State of of Iowa. She relied purely on a database, that she has no personal or direct knowledge of whether or not the database is a hundred percent accurate. Furthermore, we have received no evidence beyond the testimony of officer rack of what the fake Id actually looks like. We have no pictures, nor do we have any photographs of what the operatives actually look like. These gotcha compliance checks are simply not in line with the State's recommendation on valid valid compliance checks. In short, under the statute. The city should absolutely not be using fake ids to trick licensees into violations.

[216:06] and I submit to the board that the compliance check in this case was conducted in an unreasonable manner. We've heard testimony that the operatives were not noticeably, physically different from the men described on the Ids, and there is no evidence that has been presented that they were. It is unreasonable to expect the Waffle Lab employees to catch a difference between a 5 foot, 6 man and a 5 foot 9 male in operative number one and operative Number one accurately provided a name tied to the specific Id in question. Operative number 2 had a slight height, deviation. and requiring a person to visually be able to tell a difference in this variation is also unreasonable when, in the moment he is trained to look at the date of birth which reflected he was over the age of 21.

[217:03] In short, the city is simply asking you to take their word for it, that, based upon a database, these Ids were, in fact, invalid. We have no testimony or affidavits from the city. from the State of Illinois or the State of Iowa, regarding the actual validity or invalidity of these Ids, and under the mint case. it's the city's burden to produce and present that kind of evidence. So, in short, we request that the Board dismiss this show cause action against the Waffle lab. Thank you. Thank you very much. If we could reset the timer for 5 min. 1015. I'm sorry, Roberta. What was that. The city still has 10 min and 15 seconds of their allotted 15

[218:03] gotcha. Yeah. 10 min and 15 seconds. Correct. There you go! Thank you. Is it unreasonable to believe that an employee who inspects drivers, licenses, and ids for a living to realize when someone is using an id that clearly doesn't belong to them. The city thinks not. It is permissible to go about the sting operation in the way the office erected under State law. The statute is not as clear as counsel indicates, because if the statute was as clear as that, then there would be no case law. But there is case law and Lay says that when it is obviously invalid. that that is an acceptable method of determining whether or not we are dealing with fraudulent proof of identification.

[219:06] The city's position is that it was obviously invalid. The authority heard Officer Rick testify about the racial ethnicity differences of one of the operatives, the height differences, the eye, color in the totality. There were enough differences between what was listed on these Ids, and how the operatives looked that it could have been caught by the bouncer. and it is not an unreasonable ask to ask someone who does this for a living to do their job and do it properly. And so the city asked that this authority does not dismiss the show cause, that the authority finds that a violation occurred, because, in fact, underage operatives were served at Cores Light on May 9, th 2024 at the lab bar and bikes. and the city believes that, based on Officer Rex testimony. And this legal argument being presented now and previously, that we have met our burden by a preponderance of the evidence today. Thank you.

[220:11] Alright! Great! Thank you so much. At this time and again, anyone correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe we close for deliberation and discussion. You do. I do. Wanna put one thing on the record. the license he mentioned that I may have provided some documents to the authority, and I did provide 3 documents. I provided the statute itself case that was discussed, and the regulation dealing with the accepting of ids. So you should have that. Thank you. So we are closed for deliberation.

[221:02] yeah, let's have a conversation. Alright. So right. I I think the the 1st kind of question we have to ask ourselves is. did did the lab sell alcohol to a minor after checking Id. That was on the list of adequate identification. Or do we consider this adequate identification? I think that's 1 of the 1st questions we have to ask ourselves. it feels like to me that a bouncer should be able to identify someone using the tools at their disposal which would be inclusive of a book. A scanner, something of that nature. If there is any.

[222:01] you know, form of discrepancy like, hey? Is this person a little taller, maybe, does their skin tone not match, or something of that nature. That that should. you know, in my opinion, do care would be to escalate to a manager to perform one of those other other checks. And so I I think that the you know, identification that was used. was was fraudulent, and there were plenty of signs that it was fraudulent. I would agree with that in that. They argue that form is one of the things that needs to be verified. And there were clearly some indicators here that were not what was presented in front of them, and what was on the Id. It it seems that what would happen was just the date of birth was looked at. I don't know if the photo was looked at, and I can't say however.

[223:00] they didn't appear. The photos, and the form descriptions did not match with the operatives is what I got from the testimony from Officer Rep. This is Member Absalom and I would just be careful around how we use definitions around race and how we look at people's height and eye color. And I understand. because I know this personally from working at looking at Ids most of my career, that it can be a little bit obvious in certain cases, but very not obvious in other cases. So as I look at this case law, I I kind of I'm I'm finding myself in between what's happening, what the argument that you're making right now versus the argument that Ms. Becky was also making in the sense that we have to kind of. Give the people who are watching those doors and checking those ideas a slight benefit of the doubt. There should be a book. There should be things that are checked. But there are things. And I would be careful around race specifically when you're talking about how we manage, how people look

[224:03] specifically that and that being, said I, I I do have my feeling around this and based on the case. Law is that yes, the law was broken. Alcohol was served to underage people. I do not have a feeling that the person at the door was at fault here. That's how I that's how I feel currently based on the law and the testimony here today. And that's Member Absalom. Oh, but the person at the door isn't the whole story. That was just one right, because they were still then inside the establishment and served. But once you get in the door, lay you, you're that's kind of the 1st that's like. So this is 21, and up. Right. So they get a bracelet, I believe if you look at the affidavit, so they get a bracelet, and that means that the the people in charge of checking, if you're old enough to drink, are those people at the door so once that you're at that point, I know we had a case last month around this that had the 2 people checking, I think, in this establishment it's specific to like, if you have the wristband, and there's no question that the person who let this underage person into the establishment and said, They're okay to drink

[225:15] is that false? I'm not saying that that's not the case. But I'm saying is that when we look at this. at the totality of understanding being around ids that are in possession of another, which is a a huge thing being in possession of somehow there's other other person's Id and these amazing fake ids that exist these days. I I think we have to think about that as a totality. That's what I was getting at. I you're right, Leah. I'm not saying that there's not other people at fault here. I said. They broke the law. I'm just saying, do we, as an authority, have the ability to sanction them under the case law that was presented to me, and I'm saying that I don't. I, personally do not believe that we do. Because.

[226:02] Because it says in the case law that the type of identification that was used in this compliance check is, it literally falls under the I. I can't read the statute because I'm not an attorney, but it. It falls under something that is literally you're using someone else's identification card. All those that they were fake ids. But in my experience in possession of another is a huge way that people use Ids to get into the bars and to put the burden to put the burden of proof not onto either, you know, not to the city of Boulder, but onto the bar to the Bouncer to say, hey! What race are you? What height are you? What's your eye? Color? Those are things we have to do, and they have to have books, and I respect all that. But I understand also that to put that burden on that person can sometimes be a little bit much, especially when the government is a part of this, and that's my feeling on.

[227:04] It's interesting. now, there are technologies out there that could have prevented this. And so I wonder why, if an established like, why doesn't this establishment have that? Or are they going to get it. I mean, Officer Rex said herself. She doesn't even have a id check. Yeah. But Officer wreck isn't can't be everywhere. I don't believe that officer wreck needs to be the one who. Oh, I agree with you, too. And look. It needs to be the establishments it needs to the P. The people, if they're responsible enough to have an alcohol. a liquor license. Then they are taking ownership and responsibility for whose hands alcohol ends at the end, not officer wreck using a database.

[228:00] I would I would back Member Roberts in that, and just based on the location of this establishment and the demographic of the surrounding neighborhood. I just don't know that we're really talking about the demographic of the neighborhood. At this point we're just discussing how someone checks an id at this point. and to me to to have a a government official show up at an establishment with someone in possession of another or a fake. Id. It goes against the basic case law that I've been reading the last few days, and that's how I feel about it. And that's just why I wanted to present my my personal opinion to this board. And that's how I feel about it. And to further my point, what I was referring to with Member Roberts comment was. you would think that an establishment live is in the location that it is with the demographic would have better means for checking ids.

[229:05] I agree. I agree with you wholly. I'm I'm not saying they there should be books. There should be more things going on there. But just in this case there, in terms of a preponderance of evidence. That's where I'm having a problem around that. But I understand in terms of what we're talking about and security and safety in this community around response to alcohol service. And I've been, I've been around responsible alcohol service in Boulder for 15 years. I care about it. But I I can't look at the preponderance evidence in this case and say, Hey, it's okay for the government or the Bpd to go in and do something like this. It's just based on the law. I just don't see it for me. There any other comments from any of the other board members. A quick point of clarification, is it? We're looking at the suspension.

[230:02] Determining if a violation actually occurred. But and then, if that's the case, then that it would lead to a suspension. But if one did not occur, it could a fine or anything could still be levied out. No, the case would be dismissed. Would be dismissed in entirety. Okay. I have a quick question on going back to just the the chain of events here. So there was a we. There was a sting that operatives were there earlier in the spring, and then the establishment turn. Those was were able to deny those ids, and then was revisited, due to just community complaints that were filed. and just from other officers that saw that there was need for attention.

[231:03] Well. So in the first, st in the 1st compliance check they use the classic vertical ids that said they were underage. Right. And then, if you look to the affidavit, there was a disturbance on the 26, th I believe, of April, where officers walked in, and they watched people running out when they saw the cops right. So then they run. This next compliance check. The city of Boulder runs a check that says we're going to use a different form here, where they have people and held of other ids that are not theirs, which is, is very to me something I've never even seen happen in our city. So that's what's unique to me. Yeah. And with the people running out, I would say that that is a bit speculative reasonings. So. Because in the affidavit they're shoulder to shoulder. The police officer can't walk into the building. So yeah. I understand, but. I guess I would like to know? Because we're getting a lot of compliance checks.

[232:01] And we're getting quite a few show causes. So why is this like this can't be the only place where this form was used, and so why it just, I just wonder like, why aren't other people failing with this same method. There's no evidence to prove that this was used in any other compliance check ever. So we have no idea. Right. That's what I'm saying, like, right? So we can't say that, you know other people had failed or passed it, because we have no idea if this variety of id usage was using any other compliance check in the history of compliance checks and. We can't speculate on that. What what I you know. The way I think through it, though, is that there are other

[233:00] restaurants, bars in the area that do use scanners and other forms of double verification, and that wasn't used in this situation, which would have completely, you know, eliminated the should have eliminated the issue as officer rec testified when she put it through the State and Federal databases, it came back as invalid. and there should be. That's some level of yeah, that there's some level of verification there to say, Hey, this is. This is not a real id. But the question isn't whether or not people are required to have a machine to check Id. That's how it was. The compliance check was operated. And that's what we're talking about at this point. So you and I both are in big favor of having machines on there. So I to me. The question is how this went down, and looking at all the case law around it, I think that's what we really need to discuss is, as you look at the law, and I think both the city and the defense have great arguments around this, because the the actual, the second law

[234:06] that the city was talking about does ask the person checking the Id to use their mind. Right? Use common sense where the first, st the the initial law we're talking about just talks about not using anything fraudulent in any way. But then, when we talk about in the Appellate Court, I believe it was, they say, like, Hey, we want to ask those people to choose common sense around it. So that's a that's a question for us to talk about. But like I said, I'm pretty clear in my stance. I I just don't think that that's the way the government should be running compliance checks. D. Yeah. And so kind of going back to case law. I'm glad you brought that up just based on what I'm reading in here that the affirmative defense would require that the minor present, the false identification and the licensee would possess an identification book. and it doesn't seem like that existed. So that's kind of one of the things that I'm

[235:01] I'm concerned about here. Sorry. Remember, Kar, can you kind of I didn't quite follow that. What you're concerned that. Well, there's and maybe you know it's it's my lay reading of this. But talking about affirmative defenses right? saying that it's like Regulation 40, 47, 9, 1, 2 B. It says that it's an affirmative defense. If a minor presents false identification that's listed in another regulation and the Licensee possessed identification book that contained a sample of the kind of identification. But in reading of the affidavit it didn't appear that that book was used Bye, dear. Validate that identification. And you're talking about it wasn't used by the establishment. Correct, and and to me it seems like both of those things must be true for this to be an environment of defense.

[236:12] I would agree with that. Roberto. Yeah, Miss Vecchio is, is raising her hand. You cannot disturb deliberations. You cannot disturb deliberations by your speech, or shaking your head back and forth when they're trying to make points, you cannot nod your head up and down, or shake your head left and right. Alright. So with this discussion and all the points we've made. Does anybody have any motion? I I. Before we even maybe get into motions. I just wanna like gut check. Does anyone else on the authority here? Read that differently on page 3 at the bottom of page 3 into 4. I want to make sure that we're you know that I'm reading that accurately.

[237:31] I think you are. I think you are as well and like, I said, I think you know the initial laws that I was reading around. It was says, the regulation places like, say, I noticed they should sell alcohol to a minor after checking it, but identification that is on the list. Adequate identification, officially valid as a form of expiration date which they were not expired. Ids. Right. You may not use the sale on the ground for revocation or dispension of a liquor license.

[238:02] So I'm just I I understand. There, there was a law that was passed around that. So I think there is a little bit of legal kind of gray area around and the the book, and the reason, or I think. what I was. I was right down here, you know. like an obvious note of race, eye, color, or height is listed in there. Maybe. So. That was kind of how the law was changed a little bit. But I guess my only argument against that is that those are hard things to say, especially in our current culture around those type of things. So we have to follow law. I agree with Member Carr that there was no book involved which is literally written into that blah and was, I guess the question is, was there an obvious thing between the Ids presented and the people presenting them? That's what that law reads to me like.

[239:06] Alright. So, going back. we've had some discussion. Does anybody have a suggested suggested motion. This is Member Auslam. I move to find, by a preponderance of evidence that the lab Bar invites sold alcohol to a minor who presented identification, that is, on the list of adequate identifications, and that the idea is valid as a form of expiration date, and therefore we should now consider to not include any suspension or replication of the license to not. I will. Member Carr will second that motion. Alright. We have a 1st and a second. Now we vote all in favor. Say, aye.

[240:02] Remember Absalom, I. Haggerty. Member Haggerty. Aye. Member, Califano. Nay. Member Robert Tenney. Alright! So the motion passes. Okay. So now we have to find a a sanction that does not include suspension of revocation.

[241:04] I believe they already handled that with the person who served alcohol to the person. So I think that's already done right. I believe so. Yes. Only that person is sanctioned. I'm confused. It was my understanding that we could find sanctions against the licensee. Is that incorrect? Better. That is, that is not incorrect the way that you posed it. So the the question is whether the licensee should be held responsible in a manner that does not contain losing the license or a suspension. I believe that my motion was that they do not need to face sanction or revocation.

[242:04] Were your words sanction or revocation, or was it suspension or revocation? And suspension or revocation. Yeah, I thought it was suspension and revocation. Yes, I did not say the word sanction. I apologize, I said suspension right. So now the question is, how do you address the issue with the licensee? Not with any specific person. And and at this point you can certainly now consider matters in mitigation and aggravation. So if either side has issues they want to present now would be that time. Alright. Roberto, it's okay. If I call on Miss Vecchio. Ms. Hecchio. Yes, thank you. I have evidence to present in terms of mitigation. And I have my

[243:07] client here, Miss Ashley Bott, to testify. Yes, that would be great. Thank you. One of the issues that you might want to address. And I think Caitlin brought this up. There was a portion of mitigation that was provided before the deadline some things that were provided subsequent to the deadline. The reason that the deadlines exist is so that you can review them ahead of time. But you need to, as a as the authority, decide whether or not you're going to consider any of the matters that were submitted after the deadline. And may I address? So it appears, and and Caitlin can confirm that there was. I submitted everything but a glitch in terms of

[244:04] what was actually included in the in the agenda. The only new item is a certificate for Mr. Bouchara that one was late, but everything else was submitted in a link that I provide provided to Caitlin and when reviewing the packet there was an accidental admission of 2 items. what which I provided to Caitlin again, subsequently following the deadline. So I don't know if Caitlin wants to address that or not. I can just tell you how we put the packet together, so licenses are able to send mitigating factors by the deadline. And then the city licensing doesn't have like the we don't decide whether or not those whatever they send is

[245:04] formatted correctly or anything like that like. We just provide you all what they send like. We don't make any judgments on those. So I just provided whatever whatever Ms. Vecchio said, and it's possible that there was like a glitch or something in in transferring, because, you know, obviously, you've seen your packet is almost 400 pages. So perhaps there was like a glitch in the in the Pdf. I don't know but I will. This is what I can tell you is that Exhibit number 3 which was sent to you today. That one was in the original documents that Miss Becchio provided before the deadline, and then exhibit number one. I believe is, was training documents, and the difference between those 2 documents with some signatures. I believe, and then exhibit number 2 was the one that was is that that feels accurate was the one that was provided after the deadline. So that's just how we put the packet together.

[246:08] How does the Board feel about including those. I I think it's reasonable. We we can include them. I think we've had a lot of issues with our packet and everything today. Yeah. Fine. By me. I'm I think they should be included. Ms. Vecchio, please continue. Thank you. Ashley. If you could, just for the record again state your name and spell your last name. Ashley Bott. Her last name is BO. 2 T. And what is your age and home address. 36, 1112, English Oak Court, Loveland, Colorado, 8, 0. 5, 3, 8. And if you could present a brief background of your education and experience in the restaurant industry.

[247:02] Yeah. So education wise high school graduate went to college for for 4 years. I've owned both the restaurant on the hill, and also 2 other restaurants and a food truck up in Fort Collins for the past 4 years, along with my business partners, Brad and Rachel Ramaya. Brad has over 25 years of experience. In the hospitality industry from working and managing in bars, restaurants, hotels, to country clubs. Just so that's as an ownership. Kind of panel that's that's our background. And what are your responsibilities as one of the owners of the Waffle lab. really everything. From day to day. Operations. Hiring ordering, scheduling. overseeing, managing.

[248:01] Yes. And how many employees do you have currently at the Waffle lab. In our boulder location we have 21 employees. And of those 21. How many are full time versus part time? most of them are part time, so about 20 are part time, and one is full time. And what are your current? Well, let me back up. I'm sorry before this violation happened. What were your training policies for new hires. So before the violation we used alcohol safe training through Tom Regan, was the the person that we were using to train all of our employees we did have all employees trained, regardless of if they were trained by previous companies. Cause

[249:06] we felt it was better for them to be trained through someone that we wanted them to be trained. By which at the time was Tom Regan. At this time we've changed that all to Patrick. Moroni which is what we did. Our retraining through after the May 9th sting ongoing training at that time were things like that we still do. We have weekly meeting with our managers. Pre shift meetings which each employee that, you know, as they come in to just kind of go over things again, and policies to make sure that they're top of mind in their shift. That they're not you know. distracted by what happened with their significant other before they came in, or any of the other things, and make sure that they're focused on what they're doing in their task at hand.

[250:06] And when an employee is hired, when they're new, how soon after their hire date are they trained. We require them to go through the alcohol service training before they serve alcohol so they we do allow them to come in and work in the sense that they can shadow an employee that is tip certified, or in this case now, Patrick Maho Maroney's I think he calls it abt certified but they are not allowed to serve alcohol until the time that they are are trained, and we aim to have that done within a week of their start? Date. And is, that? Was that the case before the sting operation. That was the case before the State operation. And that's the case now as well.

[251:00] right. Yes. Sorry. Since the alleged violation, or or since the sting operation. you stated you've had all employees trained again or retrained. Is that right? Yeah. So we actually brought Patrick Moroni in for a private training of our employees, including Brad and myself. We did a you know I don't know. I was maybe 3 h or 4 h, however long that course takes but it was great, because since it was our establishment and just our employees and ownership. We really got to kind of dig in a little bit deeper with Patrick than you would do, maybe on a more public training. And you are personally retrained as well as brad Rumaya, correct. Correct. Okay, and I'd like to. 1st of all, looking at these exhibits,

[252:03] want to clarify for their record. I want to make sure they're all admitted as into evidence. And if not, I can go through all the business records online of questioning. But just from a procedural standpoint looked like under the rules. I needed to follow the civil rules of procedure, and I didn't want to bore the bla with a bunch of background foundation questions on business records. If that's not necessary. For mitigating factors. I don't believe it will be. Okay, so I'll proceed. I see. And with the understanding that all of the exhibits that are in the packet are admitted and included as evidence. Correct. Okay, thank you for that clarification. So actually, looking at what you have as exhibit one. This is the tenure of employees. And this is the document that just got circulated today. To the bla do you recognize this document? Yes.

[253:01] And what is it? So it's actually the form that I submitted with the renewal for A liquor license you had asked for tenure of employees, and that seemed like an appropriate form to present. And substantially, substantively. Is it accurate as to the dates of hire and the retraining of all employees? Yes. Okay? Then, looking at what you have as exhibit 2 and for the bla, this is pages 137 to 1 46 of your packet. What are these documents? Sorry I'm trying to pull it up. I didn't actually download the packet, so I'm trying to view it through the web, and it's just a little slow on my computer. Okay, so these are the certificates of completion for the alcohol beverage training through Patrick.

[254:03] Okay? And are these all of the most recent certificates for each employee? They are, including the one that was submitted for alum which I think was submitted separately as exhibit one. Thank you, and to the best of your knowledge and understanding have all employees been been retrained through prepped learning. Yes. And what types of internal policies and procedures does the waffle app have regarding serving alcohol. So I think our alcohol policy is in there. However. I mean, I I do wanna say that Brad and I are a small family owned business, and we do really take it seriously. That, we aren't providing alcohol to underage people. This is not something that you know we want to do. Brad's 2 sons are gonna go to college one day, and I assure you that he does not want them to be

[255:01] drinking underage in any establishment. So we take it really seriously. We talk about it with our employees every single week. If not every single day. I would say every single day is probably more accurate. we want to impress on them that this is a safe environment. We want people to come in and feel safe. I have even heard from our patrons that they enjoy being at our restaurant because they feel safe. They don't have complaints of. you know things like sexual sexual harassment and things like that. And that's really the establishment that we try to run in the environment. We try to have so we take it really seriously. policies are. Of course, everybody has to be id. We have changed some policies. Yes, the bouncers are still id. Every single person. But our bartenders are now also iding every single person. We are still using wristbands, but we're not using them.

[256:05] In the same way. We're using them more now to identify that this person has been id twice at that point and can drink alcohol in the establishment, and if somebody is in there. Say, for instance, it's 1130 in the morning. We do allow people under 21 to come in and eat and so it's a very good way for us to identify, to make sure that nobody that's you know, under 21 is drinking at at 9 Pm. It's 21 and up there's no one that's going to be in there. But at that point that's how we're using the response. And is this a. This is a new policy. Since that sting operation on May 9, th with the wristbands. Ye? Yes, we were using the wristbands then, but we've changed it in that aspect of bouncers are iding for initial admission. Bartenders are reiding everyone and putting the wristband on their wrist themselves. And it is being used as a way to make sure that

[257:16] you know, say, a group of 10 people come in. They want to have lunch. 5 of them want to have a drink. They are over 21. They have a drink, and we're making sure that the other 5 aren't sipping at a straws next to their friend. and you mentioned you have monthly weekly daily training. Can you explain that in terms of like refreshing your employees. Yeah. So daily, I would say, you know, in the beginning of a shift, the manager that's there is talking to the employees just kind of refreshing like. Let's make sure. You know you're looking at. Not just the the birth date. You're asking questions. You're feeling the id, you know, like, those kinds of things.

[258:05] we do have the scanner we actually were advised by Patrick Moroni not to to use the scanner. So I'm so it's a hard one to speak to on on that part. monthly or sorry weekly. We have a meeting with our manage managers that are there to again. Kind of go over the same policies, but then also have them, you know. Be being aware and making sure that they're keeping an eye on everyone, making changes as needed. On an immediate basis. And also even sending people home if if they make a mistake. And we're, you know. for whatever reason they had a bad grade. You know we're dealing with some people that are also in college. So we recognize that their headspace may not be in the exact same place, and we have asked employees to go home and to make sure that they're on point when they are working. So we have a lot of touch points with every single employee to make sure that.

[259:16] You know, they're not just coming in and checking the box as you will. And we were looking at. Exhibit 3. That's your exhibit 3, which is pages 104 to 136. You're having all employees review and sign your alcohol policy. Correct. Yes, everyone signs it. It's actually presented to them upon their new hire paperwork. So we do have an online hr portal where they have to, you know, fill out their I. 9 and W. 4, and everything like that. This is also presented in there, and they do need to. read and sign it to be able to actually complete their paperwork.

[260:01] There's been some discussion about the Id book and the scanner. Can you speak to each of those pieces. Yeah, so the scanner we have the scanner. We've had it. We actually had it before this sting occurred. We were getting a lot of issues with the scanner and then, after this sting, we asked Patrick about it like pretty extensively, actually, because it is something that has come up. I think I'm from, I think from officer, wreck, wreck, or somewhere. But he has stated to us that it doesn't always work and doesn't always catch them. And he also stated to us that many fake ids now scan without a problem. And so we have kind of adapted our way of using it. We are using it now. We're using it more as a secondary.

[261:05] you know, way to help our employees. We also at. This is me my own opinion, but I do believe that it does kind of help as a deterrent when you see the person at the front door checking Ids, and they have the scanner. I think it does help to maybe weed out some of the people that are wanting to enter when they see that so it is used, and it is at the front door now. And we do have the id book as well. Thank you. I'm sorry. Is a waffle love active in the boulder community. Yes, so we do a lot with the students of of obviously of Cu we've done many fundraising events with

[262:08] different Greek organizations. We've just donated to the Cu boulder cheerleading team, which is fun. They have our logo on one of their shirts. We just did a a fundraising event for St. Jude. We've done for Ms. We've done quite a few for the huntsman Cancer Institute. as well as we have joined rar as another resource. For us to kind of work with, and partner with. So looking at it's page 1, 71. Your exhibit. 5. This is a table of donations. If you could maybe speak to it, and the receipts for the donations which are kind of throughout the packet pages 147 to 182 in terms of the donations that have been made to different community organizations in Boulder.

[263:09] Yeah. So as maybe some know most Greek organizations have philanthropies that they support. That they raise money for and so we have partnered with many of them to basically give do a give back of sales. So it's generally a specific timeframe on a specific day, and we give back anywhere between 10 and 20% of our sales. It's just different, based on on each one of them. But over, I don't know the exact total that's here, but certainly over $2,000 worth of sales over the last. I don't know when we started doing this year, I would say 2 years, maybe

[264:01] And then the receipts are there. the fully, the Greek organizations do always give us the option to donate the money to them, and then they'll donate to their philanthropy. We have stated that our wish is to donate it directly to the philanthropy to ensure that. That's where that money is going. I don't think that they're lying about where they're donating their money, but I do always want to make sure it's going to the the actual organization. So did that answer. Yes, thank you. What was your reaction when you received the show? Notice to show cause? In terms of the seriousness of the allegation. And and how did you handle that. Yeah, I mean, like, I said, we, we do take this super seriously. This is not something that we take lightly. We understand that we are located in a spot where predominantly our demographic is college students.

[265:05] I take it very seriously, my employees know that we are very serious about it being a safe environment, that we do not have any tolerance for things like drugs being done in the establishment or drug dealing being done in the establishment which is rampant on the hill. And we have gotten one word that an employee may be part of something that sells drugs, and they have been terminated immediately. The employees that the 3 employees that were part of that were written summonses have not been fired. They have been retrained. We have talked to them extensively about what has happened? How it could have been different. And and they themselves have talked quite a bit with their own peers that are employees about how to make things better going forward. And I

[266:08] and I know that they they double check each other now, and they really have they they really understand the severity of it. And I do think that the group training the private group training with Patrick Maroney was a really big part of you know them learning a little bit more in depth about things than the previous Tom Regan training we had done, even though that was like it was a Zoom One. But I do think the Patrick Moroni one is a little bit better. Thank you. And then have you done your own personal calculation? Of alcohol sales in the last 90 days. Yes, the last 90 days of alcohol sales were

[267:11] 116, 7, 35. So it was like 1297 per day. for 90 days. Okay, so, and this is sort of a unique circumstances in the event that the Board is considering a fine I'm just presenting her testimony on 90 days of sales for the Board's consideration. I have no more further questions from the spot. Thank you, Ashley. Thanks. Great. Are there any questions from the board. I? I do have one question. On the night of the the this alleged violation took place. Why was the or what would happen with the the book that I believe you mentioned you have on the premises now, but like was that there at that time? And why was it not used? If it was.

[268:06] At that time the book was not present. So then a follow up question, how would you know a situation like this to be handled? How have you instructed your employees to handle these situations? Yeah, so we do have the book now. That is to be used. And we do have the scanner that we are using especially on out of state licenses. Which I mean, I guess I can't say for certain, but it it does seem to be that most fake ids or fraudulent ids seem to be out of state. So that's kind of how we've handled that we've also really express to our employees that they don't have to let someone in. That it? Well, I don't want to say like, just use your gut and be willy nilly. It can be a little bit of your gut, and that

[269:07] you know, to to get a manager, and that we'll we're going to always back them if they make the decision to deny somebody And and even if that's the wrong call right, even if it's somebody that is over 21, it's there. That we will back that if I don't know, people get very upset. But you know. Thank you. Appreciate that. Great. Are there any other questions? Alright! At this time we will close for deliberation in terms of a sanction. Does anybody have emotion. Can we get some? I guess I'm a little confused on what the motion would be like. What are we looking at

[270:01] like? What are we. Roberta. Yeah, thanks. So you've done other things in the past with other licenses. For example, you've asked for them to take classes or to do trainings and then come back. you know, once a month, for 6 months you've asked. You've come up with creative solutions to address specific issues. So anything other than suspension or revocation is on the table. So this was charged under Colorado, Colorado. Revised statute chapter 44, section 3, and as it relates to fines. I'm going to go ahead and read it to you, and then let me know if you have any questions under 44, 3, 6, 0 1 subsection one. Any local licensing authority has the power, on its own motion.

[271:07] or on complaint after investigation and public hearing, at which the licensee shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard to fine a licensee, or to suspend or revoke a licensing authority, may impose a fine. regardless of whether the licensee has petitioned the licensing authority or permission to pay a fine in lieu of a license, permit suspension. and the licensing authority need not make findings specified in the other subsections. So all of that, to say. finds any other training that you believe is necessary to address this specific issue.

[272:00] Thank you. This is member absolutely speaking to Member Roberts. I was thinking like something along the lines of check-ins, because at the the head of that affidavit was a concerning moment where officers walk into the building and people are running out right? So maybe we do kind of a monthly check in type sanction having them come before the board and make sure there's no incidents. I'm not sure. Maybe chair. Calafano might have a better idea about how we do something like that we've done in the past, and it's been helpful, especially on the hill with licensees. So I'm not sure what we can do here, but that's just a suggestion for me. I would I I concur with that. I would like to see check ins I don't know. That needs to be monthly, but I was thinking something like, you know, every other month. And you know my my other thought in this is there should be some level of fine That's levied as well. because there was service to to Myers.

[273:00] I guess I'm not sure what the check-in would achieve in this case. Are like they able to report back on like number of fake ids confiscated. Is that like, what we're looking for? Or is it. Yeah, for a check in for me would be just. You know, we don't always hear about every single police interaction with a licensee. It would be kind of something along those lines understanding like what's going on operationally like. Yes, fake ids would be something I'd love to hear about. You know. kind of like hearing from the licensee about what's going on at the establishment. It's just conduct of establishment is what you're looking for in this instance. in terms of a fine. I'm not really sure how that would be levied. I I really would defer to chair Califano around that I'm not sure how that would work. I'm not so sure a fine would do much at this point. I see your point, Member Carr.

[274:00] I really do. I would be more apt to do a monthly check in for potentially 3 to 6 months. and I say 3, because just because that's when you know, the semester is gonna end there, there it will dwindle at the end. There. I don't know if I agree necessarily with 6 months. But what does the Board think about a 3 month check in for the next 3 consecutive months? Yeah, I like 3 months. That's kind of the the meat of the semester, right? So they're gonna have plenty to report back on. Second. Include anything from level of business to number of fakes. Just how they're conducting themselves. I I agree I'd like to hear I'd like to hear a report on if they're seeing fake ids, confiscating fake ids. You know it. Things of that nature like any types of issues that they're encountering, how, how they're handling those issues and how they're adapting as a business on the Hill and and with the Hill as as a member of the community there.

[275:13] And and I, I feel like that would also help us to understand how we can, you know, assist them. Provide them potential resources within the city and other organizations and other understand whether businesses are also basic. Great. Some member, Califano, would make a motion to have a 3 month check-in for the next consecutive 3 months at the at each monthly hearing to to report back on how the business establishment is operating, fake ids, level of business, what they're seeing, maybe a trend, maybe things that they need from us for support. etc. Member, Absalom would second that motion. I I would also like to just say that I I think we should make this a little bit more, toothy. I don't think we're doing enough here. Given that there was a violation that occurred. We're not leveraging any funds. Obviously we've agreed that we're not going to suspend or revoke their license. But I'm thinking that

[276:17] it would make sense for us to give them a band stays, so that if there was another violation in the next 3 to 6 month period, those those suspension days would apply in addition. So that's that's that's kind of my thought on it as well if we're not willing to leverage fine to them. At this point. Roberto, are we able to do days in advance. No because what you would be abating would be a suspended license.

[277:01] Okay. The only thing that you'd be able to do is hold this as a matter in aggravation going forward. But that's not part of that's not part of the their function. If you will. Okay. Thank you. So we have a motion, and a second all in favor. Say, aye, Member Califano, aye. Or epsilon. I. Member, carnit. Member. Haggerty? Nay. Amber Roberts. Yeah, I I know. I know. Well, if I say May, does it open up deliberation again?

[278:00] It does, the motion would fail. Okay. Member Roberts. Nay. A motion fails. Does anybody have a newly suggested motion. Yeah. So, Member Carl, make a motion. That they have 3 month a monthly check in for the next 3 months, and they're also to pay a fine and they will also have to pay a fine. which will be determined. I'm not sure how that's determined, but to be a fine that would be determined. It. I believe we have to determine that now. And wouldn't you determine it based on days that you would close right? Wouldn't you like base it off? Update? It would just be whatever we decide, member, California, okay. Let me give you a little bit of guidance based on the statute. A fine imposed pursuant to subsection, one which I read to you must be between 500 $100,000, except that penalties for a 1st violation

[279:02] that is in the least severe level of license violations established pursuant to the same subsection. must not exceed $5,000. So, Roberto, is this, this is the 1st violation, and this is the lowest level, so the fine may not exceed $5,000. Correct, it must be at least 500. Understood. Okay, thank you. So, member car will make a motion. I'll make a motion to for monthly check-ins for the next 3 months with the bla and a $3,600 fine. Oh! Is there a second? Excuse me. Yeah, I second that, or Member Haggerty seconds the motion.

[280:02] All in favor, say, aye. Member car. I. Member hackerty, guy. Remember Absalom. There. Member Roberts name. Member, Califano. Nay. I feel like it was really high, was kind of where I was going. because the board did not find I don't know how to phrase it. But yeah, seems that seems to that. Seems very steep. I would propose. Well, I don't know. So just to give you some background I I use. I was thinking, I think they said, $1,200 a day in alcohol sales, I estimated, around 3 days of sales.

[281:00] and so if we're going by table values, it would be 5 days if they were going to be days served in suspension, but I was thinking so. A reasonable number would be 3 days. possibly $3,600 seems reasonable. I would be careful with that, just because we did not find them in violation to have any day served correct. This is an arbitrary number that we're making up. It's not based on sales. But since they did share our sales, that's how I'm I'm sort of basing it on on data sales. What I'm suggesting around the the check backs around the 3 months rather than going to a fine cause. There's no suspension or revocation that we can do right. There's no other thing we can do in terms of like a monetary fine. It should just be check backs. And then, if there is something during a check back. Then we can. We can circle back to it. But I understand that

[282:01] the the law was broken, but it was also broken, according to what we said, not in a legal way, the way that they were Fo found to be caught right? So I'm just kind of trying to understand why we still want to find them more for any reason. Because. someone can explain that to me better potentially. But the check backs, I think, are are a good start. From my point of view. all the evidence presented it. It really, I mean, I obviously voted against have the previous vote. And there was a violation. and alcohol was sold to a minor. But we as a board

[283:02] also didn't. I'm I'm guys now. I always have Joel speaking. I don't know. I'm really conflicted. I'm I'm just super conflicted. it feels. Yeah. Sit. The way. The way I I see it is that the there was a violation that occurred. The city had to expend resources and time to follow up on it. The city attorney has to be here. We all have, you know, to be here to see taxpayer dollars are involved. So I I believe that the the business should in some way make some form of restitution. That's how I'm looking at the fine as a form of restitution in this situation. even though we did not find them. you know, to be eligible for suspension based on the type and and the way that the violation occurred. Hmm.

[284:03] Alright, so does anybody have a new motion. Member apps will make a motion to do 3 months of check-ins with the bla as, according to the previous motion, and then a $1,000! Fine. There a second. Member Carr will second that motion. Great, all in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. Over Epsilon. I. Number car. I. I'm Hagerty, I. Emma Roberts. Aye. All right. Motion passes. Okay, thank you. Everyone. I think that's all we would need for this particular one.

[285:03] Thank you, Mrs. Beck. You. Thank you. Okay, we are moving on to actually give me a second. Let me make sure everyone gets back to where they're supposed to be. Looks like we're moving on to tomorrow. Okay. Sorry about that. We are moving on to agenda. Item 8, which is matters from Wcd attorney. Thank you, no additional matters. I hope that what I sent you was helpful along the process.

[286:05] And I'll be standing by for questions, but nothing for me to add. Roberto. Thank you so much for walking me, especially through that process. It's been a while since we haven't had it signed stipulation of facts and charges contested, and whatnot so. My pleasure. Any other questions from the board. Did we do? Okay? You did. Great, thank you. Like 6 out of 10. Okay, thanks, Roberto. Next, we have agenda. Item, 9 matters from licensing clerk. We just have 2 boundary settings. To go over really quickly. The 1st one is Kmg. Incorporated Dba. Scrooge, soul 1 1 4, 9, 13th Street, boulder, Colorado, 8 0, 3 0, 2 for a new hotel restaurant type, liquor license. I took their suggested boundaries from

[287:00] 8 O's. Which is located at 1 1 4, 3 13th Street Unit 101 Boulder, Colorado, 8 0, 3 0, 2, and that is directly next door to this unit. The suggested boundaries are Arapaho on the north, Baseline on the South 28th Street to Colorado, to Folsom. on the east and 9th Street on the west. Let me share my screen for you. so you can see. So this is the location, and then you should be able to see the full boundaries. Here, let me know if you need me to zoom in or out. Can you see those boundaries? One more time. Yeah. Arapaho on the north. It's up here up here. Baseline on the south. 28th Street to Colorado, to Folsom

[288:00] and 9th Street on the west. I almost want to extend that to city limits on the west dots. I was actually thinking the same thing. Alright. So I would make a motion for Arapaho on the north. 28th to Colorado, to Folsom, on the east, Baseline to the south and city limits on the west. Member Carwell, second. All in favor. Say, aye, member Califano, I. Or Absalom. I. And prakara. Aye. We're hungry. I. Member Roberts. Aye. Caitlin. What was this establishment? Again. This is for Kmg. Incorporated Dba. Scrooge, soul 1, 1, 4, 9, 13th Street, boulder, Colorado, 8 0. 3 0, 2 for a new hotel, restaurant, type, liquor, license. Thank you. You're welcome.

[289:00] and the second boundary is. let me just make sure you have the right map. Okay, you do. 1, 4, 6, 8 Pearl Street, Llc. Dba. Postino, Wine Cafe, 1, 4, 6, 8, Pearl Street, number 1, 10, Boulder, Colorado, 8 0. 3 0, 2 for a change of class to a hotel restaurant type liquor license. I took their suggested boundaries from their original liquor liquor application, which was in 2022, and that is Cedar Avenue extended on the north. Pleasant Street, extended on the South 4th Street, extended on the east Folsom on the west, and this is just a change of class from one to another, so not a new obligation. What's the class change. They're changing from a beer and wine license to a hotel restaurant license. Gotcha member Califano would move to approve. Wraps on the second. All in favor. Say, aye, member Califano, I. Over Absalom. I. Number car. Aye. We're haggard. AI!

[290:01] Member Roberts. Aye. Thank you so much. And then we don't have any transfers for this month. There is no breweries, wineries, or distilleries for you to look at. You have your special events permits list like normal, and your renewals list as normal. And then I don't have any other notes except for next month. You will have the Id scanners an agenda item for id scanners and an agenda item for off premise sales from app Member Apsom and member car. So you'll get. You'll see that on your agenda. and that is it for licensing. So I'll move on to agenda. Item, 10 matters from chair and members of the authority. Quick question, caitlin. Any idea on how many show causes next month. Yeah, I can tell you. Right now we have 2 order to show causes scheduled. And then those 2 application hearings that you just set boundaries for. Great. Thank you.

[291:00] Sure. Anything else from any of the board members. That was a tough one. Guys, yeah. I just want to say you don't have to put up with me for too much longer. My term ends shortly. So but I'll see you tomorrow. Michael. Yeah. Sounds good. Mike. Yeah, thank you guys, I'll I'll. Remember absolutely well. I really appreciate your point of view having and continued work in the industry. So I think you shouldn't consider reapplying. I said. And that. I think this was one of the most important hearings of our history as a group here with Member Haggerty involved. I think this is the toughest one, and thank you know. Thank the Lord for our fearless leader our chair, Calafano, like leading us through this stuff. He he really led it really well. But I think the the combustion of arguments today was really fun and great for our community. So that's awesome. Appreciate you all. And I'll make a motion to adjourn with them. Real quick, Mike. When's your term up? February.

[292:01] Think mine is, too. Now you're 20. Have I looked it up. What was that? Oh, God! Am I? Oh, my God! Are we up at the same time? Yeah. okay, we'll see. I'll rock paper scissors, you guys. -Oh, yeah. Maybe so. That would make 15 years for me. Yeah, I know, and I was on the other side with the Rsg. For most of your terms. So I've I've been with you the whole time. So we'll see. I I really appreciate being around this group of people, and especially our licensing team. God, you guys are. And our new.